The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

North/South Ministerial Council: InterTradeIreland

Mr Speaker: I have received notice from the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment that he wishes to make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council meeting, in its trade and business sectoral format, held on 28 September 2001 in Newry.

Sir Reg Empey: The fifth meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council in its trade and business development sectoral format took place at the InterTradeIreland offices in Newry on Friday 28 September 2001. Dr Farren and I represented the Northern Ireland Administration. The Irish Government was represented by Ms Mary Harney TD, Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment. This report has been approved by Dr Farren and is made on his behalf also.
The Council received a verbal report form the InterTradeIreland chairperson, Dr Martin Naughton, and chief executive, Mr Liam Nellis, on recent progress by the body. This included progress on the establishment of the body and progress of the major programmes launched within the 2001 operating plan, which had been approved by the Council. Key areas discussed included the equity network, which focuses on increasing awareness of the potential for, and availability of, equity funding; and the knowledge transfer initiative with its two cross-border projects — Fusion and Focus — which bring together, on a cross-border basis, companies, graduates and institutions of third level education.
The Council considered and approved InterTradeIreland’s corporate plan 2002-04. The plan has two main strategic goals. The first is to increase the quality and quantity of knowledge concerning cross-border trade, and the second is to ensure that this improved knowledge and information is made available to those involved in decision making on cross-border trade.
Working with and through existing agencies, the body’s strategic goals will be translated into several activities, including the development of an all-island business model; the development of an electronic all-island business directory; a knowledge transfer initiative; and an equity awareness network.
The Council considered InterTradeIreland’s draft equality scheme, which had been revised following public consultation. The Council agreed that the draft scheme should be submitted to the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland for approval.
The Council accepted the resignation of two board members of Tourism Ireland Ltd, Mr John Dully, former chief executive of Bord Fáilte, and Mr David McAuley, former acting chief executive of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. The Council appointed as their replacements Mr Niall Reddy, acting chief executive of Bord Fáilte, and Mr Alan Clarke, chief executive of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board.

Mr Sean Neeson: I thank the Minister for his concise report on the meeting, and I welcome the fact that InterTradeIreland has now developed a corporate plan for 2002-04. When will the full corporate plan be made available to the House? Can the Minister update the House on the work that is being carried out by Tourism Ireland Ltd? Is the Minister satisfied with the present staffing levels at the Belfast office of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board?

Sir Reg Empey: In response to Mr Neeson’s final question, which is slightly off centre in the context of the report, the staffing situation at the Northern Ireland Tourist Board is not satisfactory. We recently appointed a chief executive, and advertisements will soon appear for several posts which have fallen vacant after people have moved on. It is to be hoped that a reasonable complement of staff will be restored shortly.
The Member will be aware that the staff members who deal with selective financial assistance are to be transferred to Invest Northern Ireland, and others will be transferred to Tourism Ireland Ltd, if they so wish. However, several key vacancies have arisen recently; also, several key members of personnel are now to take maternity leave. Those factors combine to create shortages. The Department is in discussion with the Tourist Board, and we hope to put interim measures in place.
The corporate plan will be published in the next few weeks, and it will be available for inspection by Members and the public. Detailed operating plans will appear annually, and these will be linked closely to budgets.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I congratulate the Minister on his succinct, precise and informative statement and the sterling efforts he and Dr Farren have made in the North/South Ministerial Council. In the light of the events of 11 September, the work of the Council becomes more and more vital. The statement shows the importance and the benefits of working together on a cross-border basis in the area of business development.
However, given the potential for economic downturn since 11 September, does the Minister agree that the work of InterTradeIreland is vital to the economy on both sides of the border? What short to medium-term benefits does he foresee in that respect?

Sir Reg Empey: The events of 11 September are having an impact across the board. We have not yet grasped the full implications of events, although later today the House will have an opportunity to debate some of those issues in broader terms.
In the short term, a number of key drivers are at play. The level of inward investment that we have become used to, particularly in the last financial year, is not going to be there. We must face the facts. A downturn was already under way, and that was accelerated by events in the United States. Therefore, we are going to be depending more and more on our own resources, and the key function of this body is to increase, among other things, the level of cross-border trade. It may well be that we will have to make up for the absence of inward investment by trying to increase trade closer to home. That is one of the key objectives of InterTradeIreland.
It is also essential that we measure what cross-border trade amounts to. It may surprise the House to know that this is proving difficult. The statistics are confusing. A study and work with the authorities are under way to try to assess the current level accurately.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Is the Minister referring to legitimate or illegitimate trade?

Sir Reg Empey: We are sticking to legitimate trade. It is difficult to measure. We want to assess that accurately so we can use it as a benchmark against which we can measure the progress and success of the body.
Much work is undoubtedly being undertaken. There is an attempt to alert people to the potential market on their doorsteps. The lack of knowledge and contact and the opportunities missed are staggering. People may be buying materials, goods and services from thousands of miles away when they could be buying them practically next door. The gaps in people’s knowledge are amazing in that respect. This organisation will be redressing that in the next few years.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Can the Minister assure the House that in relation to Tourism Ireland Ltd, the fair employment legislation of this country — as part of the United Kingdom — is being strictly adhered to? Will he now publish the perceived religion of the employees of Tourism Ireland Ltd?

Sir Reg Empey: My report today, as the Member knows, is on InterTradeIreland, but any body or organisation working and located in Northern Ireland is subject to the laws of this part of the United Kingdom, and that includes all the employment law. Tourism Ireland Ltd will be obliged to file its returns on the religious make-up of its workforce with the necessary authorities just as any other employer will. This statutory obligation also applies to the implementation bodies that are located in Northern Ireland; it is their statutory duty to file such returns.
The first returns from Tourism Ireland Ltd will be due early next year. The company has not yet filed a return because it has not had staff for more than a few months. All the people who have been working for that body have been secondees from the Northern Ireland Civil Service or the Irish Civil Service. However, the recruitment process is now well advanced, and it will therefore have its own complement of staff from now on. It has not yet reached its establishment level. Further recruitment will also be undertaken. All the returns that it makes will be freely available to Members, so that people can see the breakdown of the staff in those bodies.

Ms Jane Morrice: One of the most important issues affecting cross-border trade is the launch, in less than three months’ time, of the single European currency. To my surprise, I find that it is not on any agenda or given any priority at the N/SMC meetings or by InterTradeIreland. Is the Minister playing King Canute with the single European currency and trying to stop the tide? How will he prepare businesses in Northern Ireland, especially those on the border, for that inevitability?

Sir Reg Empey: The launch of the euro in January will not be confined to InterTradeIreland or any cross-border body; it will apply to all businesses. Whether we are in the European single currency zone or not, the euro will be available as legal tender. Some businesses already trade in euros, and some are already invoicing and paying bills in euros. A forum is working to inform businesses about the euro; seminars have been held, and outreach work designed to upgrade the knowledge of our business community has been done. That work is not confined to this implementation body.
InterTradeIreland acts as a catalyst in both jurisdictions. It does not have a specific remit, but it points out the fact that the Republic and many other parts of Europe are in the euro zone. We have discussed the matter, but the body can take no decisions about the European single currency; that is a matter for the United Kingdom Government and the Chancellor. The role of our Department is to ensure that all businesses are prepared, and that work is well advanced. A group has been working on that for over two years, and, over the next few months, there will be a series of seminars for businesses. There is also a large amount of literature available, and, when the time comes, businesses will be as well prepared as possible to meet the challenge.

Mrs Joan Carson: The statement says:
"Working with, and through, existing agencies, the Body’s strategic goals will be translated into a number of activities".
What are those agencies, and how will the work proceed? How many of the agencies are based in Northern Ireland, and how many are based in the Republic?

Sir Reg Empey: The reference is to agencies such as IDB, LEDU, the Industrial Research and Technology Unit (IRTU) and their equivalents in the Republic — Enterprise Ireland and the Industrial Development Agency (IDA). Those are the main agencies through which the body will work. The cross-border body is not designed to replace or supplant the work of any of those agencies in either jurisdiction; its functions are to raise awareness and to see that every step that can be taken to increase and improve cross-border trade and business is taken. InterTradeIreland does not have the capacity to deliver the services offered by the delegated statutory agencies in each jurisdiction. It is important that that fact be known.
There is growing co-operation between the existing agencies and InterTradeIreland. InterTradeIreland has facilitated meetings in various places, and it also works with chambers of commerce and other organisations such as the Confederation of British Industry (CBI), the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC), and the Institute of Directors (IoD). It mounts roadshows to raise awareness and also works through educational institutions. One of the key thrusts of the corporate plan will be the improvement of knowledge. That can be realised only by working through the existing structures in each jurisdiction; it is not intended that they be supplanted or replaced.

Mrs Annie Courtney: The Minister has spoken highly of the corporate plan presented to the North/South Ministerial Council by the board of InterTradeIreland. He has focused on the two cross-border projects, Focus and Fusion, which bring together companies, graduates and third-level education institutions. Will the Minister tell the House how recruitment to those programmes will take place, who will be involved and how Ministers from the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government will review and measure the delivery of the plan?

Sir Reg Empey: When the corporate plan is published, the Member will be able to see that a number of agenda items were set out for InterTradeIreland in December 1998. One or two of those proved impossible to advance and were discarded. What we are now seeing is the outworking of some of those agenda items. The knowledge transfer initiative brings companies, graduates and third-level institutions together on a cross-border basis. At a meeting of the body in February, Dr Farren and I pushed to increase the number of people who were eligible to participate. That was agreed, and the number of participants was doubled.
We have focused on giving companies access to the technical skills that they need to develop their products and markets. In other words, we find a company in one jurisdiction that has a perceived need and in another jurisdiction we find a potential graduate, or someone with the required skills, to be seconded to meet that need. The response has been extremely good, and a large number of people with first- or second-class degrees have been identified. We have far more applicants than we have places available. The issue is one of transferring skills to a company that might not otherwise be able to get them.
The Focus project provides a business with a graduate to assist with sales and marketing initiatives. That is one of the weaknesses of businesses throughout this island and further afield. The Fusion project matches a business with a third-level education institution and a graduate to help with the development of new products and processes. We are very encouraged by the early responses we have received to both projects.

Mr Edwin Poots: The Minister’s statement declares that through work with, and through, existing agencies, the body’s strategic goals will be translated into a number of activities including the development of an all-island, or all-Ireland, business model and an electronic all-island, or all-Ireland, business directory.
Does the Minister accept that he is wholly implementing the harmonisation aspects envisaged in the framework document?

Sir Reg Empey: If people feel so insecure in the Europe in which we are now working that we cannot do business with a neighbour because to do so would imply a constitutional weakness or impropriety, that is unfortunate. The objective is to increase business, increase sales and increase efficiency through business.
There is no reason to prevent consistent promotion of the East/West agenda. If someone from the Republic is involved in that initiative, does it mean that he is revisiting the old days of the Union? People have to understand that our focus is on economics, business and trade. Currently, some 146 companies from the Republic of Ireland are among the largest investors in Northern Ireland, second only to investment from the United States of America.
You cannot have your cake and eat it. If you want to do business, then you do business with whomever you can trade with. This is nothing whatsoever to do with the framework document. I personally rejected that document, and it did not include my views or represent me. If people take the opposite view and say "Let us not do any of this", they are taking the easy way out. We could easily neglect the development of trade and linkages. We could adopt that attitude; I had hoped, however, that "head-in-the-sand" economics was now behind us.
We are part of the European Union, whose functions include trans-European networks and a degree of economic integration within the European Union. We could always pull out of that as well and sit here in splendid isolation and purity — but we would have no trade.

Sir John Gorman: I was pleased to hear the Minister mention the Institute of Directors. While he was chairman of the Ulster Bank, the chairman of the institute, Sir George Quigley, also chaired an important body involving businesses from both sides of the border which wrote the Quigley report on cross-border trade. It provided a very good guide to the way in which the sort of joint activity mentioned by the Minister could be developed. It would be worthwhile for the Minister to obtain that report and to see how much of it is still relevant. What is relevant is that the membership of the IoD, from both sides of the border, comprises about 1,000 people, all of whom are directors, chairmen or managing directors of companies. There is a great deal of latent availability for cross-border trade within that context.

Sir Reg Empey: Professional organisations do have contacts. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and the Irish Business and Employers Confederation (IBEC) have had contacts for years. The IoD has contacts with its equivalent. We are, of course, focusing here on one particular area of activity. We have to remember that these organisations have links. They are, generally speaking, GB-based bodies in the first place. They also have links throughout the European Union and beyond. They are all linked internationally. If the last few weeks have taught us anything, they should have taught us that we are part of the global economic structures. We are not isolated, and we must not be isolated. The last thing that we need at the moment is to go in that direction.
If we want success, all our key economic activity must be linked outside Northern Ireland. Our main focus — and one of the main policies of our economic agencies — is to encourage exports. If you go around the world saying "We want to sell you our products but we are not interested in you or your products" you will soon get short shrift. The professional and business bodies have grasped that simple fact. They have realised that the more effective we can make ourselves, and the more effective our neighbours are in any direction, the better will be the basis for trade and economic prosperity. That is particularly so in current circumstances, as foreign direct investment (FDI) is going to be in exceptionally short supply in the not too distant future. People should focus on that aspect. It is possible to grow, and increased trade is as good as inward investment. It secures jobs, and I am sure that that is the rationale for the involvement of organisations such as the IoD.

Mr Danny O'Connor: I welcome the Minister’s statement. Can he tell us what has been done throughout Northern Ireland to publicise the work of InterTradeIreland among small businesses that are not necessarily operating in conjunction with LEDU?
Does he agree that to create a prosperous society here, and for local businesses to be successful, we must expand upon the work of InterTradeIreland and establish an east/west link, a European link and a global link? Does he envisage any expansion of the plan to include other European trading partners?

Sir Reg Empey: Those are sensible ideas. I agree that our objective should be to focus on increasing links, not only on this island and with the rest of the UK, but with the rest of the EU and further afield. Trade International Northern Ireland — the trading arm of the IDB — has received support from companies for missions overseas, which I will explain in more detail later.
InterTradeIreland held four roadshows that were well attended by members of the business community: I attended two of them. The purpose of the roadshows was to let the business community know of the organisation’s existence and potential. InterTradeIreland has also held themed events on e-commerce; it has a web site; it has communicated with all the major statutory organisations on both sides of the border; and it has sponsored several events, such as awards ceremonies. InterTradeIreland has also tried to establish itself by linking with chambers of commerce and several local authorities.
One must remember that it is only in the past few months that InterTradeIreland has had permanent staff. When it begins to publish its reports and deliver on the programmes that are now commencing, its work will be more widely known than it is at present.
Approximately two weeks ago, a substantial supplement to ‘The Irish Times’ focused on equity, and indicated the work that InterTradeIreland is doing in that area. The Member will find that supplement in the Library, and he will see how that organisation is doing its best to publicise its activities.

Mr Roy Beggs: The Minister mentioned the importance of sales and marketing to the Focus and Fusion schemes. Given the advent of the one-hour ferry crossing between Larne and Cairnryan, does the Minister accept that to increase trade with Scotland, the north of England and the rest of the UK will become more important to businesses in Northern Ireland in future?

Mr Speaker: Order. I have listened to several questions, and I must say that Members are using the opportunity afforded by statements, and questions to them, to rove wide of the statements themselves. That is inappropriate. It seems to have come to the point where I will have to talk to the Business Committee because the matter of questions on statements is being abused by some Members.
It is up to the Minister whether he wishes to respond to Mr Beggs’s question. However, it has nothing to do with InterTradeIreland, which was the subject of the statement.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hope that you do not include my question, because that was relevant to the statement.

Mr Speaker: Order. I did not mention any particular Member. If Members sense that what I said is relevant to them, that has nothing to do with me.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I do not feel that it refers to me. I will continue to ask my questions.

Mr Speaker: Order. I did not mention any particular Member. However, I caution on the general issue because I have listened carefully to all the questions — at least those that were questions, because not all of them were. I leave it to the Minister to decide whether to respond.

Sir Reg Empey: In response to my Colleague, 37% of goods that we produce go to the rest of the United Kingdom. There is no doubt that that is our single largest market. There is scope for the British-Irish Council to take up that aspect of the work, and there is no reason why that should not happen.
The Member refers to the links between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. Ferry crossings are undoubtedly one of those key links. Activity by any of our statutory agencies that ignored that fact would indicate a failure by those organisations, because they would not have focused on their nearest and most significant market.

Social Security Fraud Bill: Further Consideration Stage

Clauses 1 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Social Security Fraud Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

Committee Business: Assembly Standing Orders

Mr Conor Murphy: I beg to move the following amendment: In Standing Order 52 delete all and insert
"52. SUB-COMMITTEES
(1) Each Committee ("the parent Committee"), in the discharge of its functions, may establish sub-Committees.
(2) Unless with the approval of the Business Committee and the Assembly, a parent Committee shall establish no more than one sub-Committee to operate at any one time.
(3) A sub-Committee shall be appointed to consider specific, time-bounded matters within the terms of reference set by the parent Committee and shall:
(a) report only to that Committee; and
(b) stand dissolved on disposal of those matters.
(4) A sub-Committee shall not take any decision on behalf of the parent Committee.
(5) A parent Committee may appoint a member to be the Convenor of a sub-Committee.
(6) Each sub-Committee shall, in as far as it is practicable, reflect the party strengths in the Assembly.
(7) The quorum of a sub-Committee shall be determined by the parent Committee.
(8) The proceedings of a sub-Committee shall be such as the parent Committee shall determine."
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair).
Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. As part of the ongoing review of Standing Orders, the Committee on Procedures has reviewed the procedures for establishing Sub-Committees.
The Committee focused primarily on the purpose of Sub-Committees and the procedures by which they are established. In its consideration, the Committee sought and received the agreement of the Chairperson’s liaison group to propose a Standing Order. The Committee drew on the practice used in other parliamentary institutions.
The purpose of the motion is to clarify the existing Standing Order that deals with Sub-Committees, which is Standing Order 52. That facilitates the establishment of Sub-Committees and formed part of the original Standing Orders agreed by the Assembly on 9 March 1999. However, the Committee concluded that several important issues are not addressed in the Standing Order. There is no provision for setting a quorum; there is no provision for setting procedures under which a Sub-Committee will work; and no account is taken of the possibility that a Committee may wish to establish two or more Sub-Committees to operate concurrently.
The proposed amendment to the Standing Order is designed to take account of those omissions. Sub- Committees can be useful to enable Committees to make progress quickly and efficiently, especially when a Committee is faced with a heavy work programme, or when there are other pressing engagements on Members’ time that could make it difficult for the Committee to operate effectively. I refer to recent difficulties faced by some Committees during the recent Westminister election campaign.
Under Standing Order 52, a Committee of the Assembly currently has the right to establish a Sub- Committee, but it must first seek the approval of the Business Committee and, subsequently, that of the Assembly.
The Committee on Procedures considered that to meet that requirement was an unwieldy procedure. It concluded that the decision regarding the establishment of a Sub-Committee was one for the relevant Committee to make, and that the approval of the Business Committee and the Assembly was unnecessary.
The Committee on Procedures has therefore proposed that the Standing Order be amended and that the parent Committee be allowed to decide whether to create a Sub-Committee, without the prior approval of the Business Committee or the Assembly. However, to ensure that there is no abuse of the procedure, the Committee on Procedures has proposed that the new Standing Order state that Committees must seek the approval of the Business Committee and the Assembly if they wish to operate more than one Sub-Committee at any one time.
A further safeguard to the procedure, which is in addition to the current provisions of Standing Order 52, is that a Sub-Committee may be appointed only to consider specific time-bounded matters and must be dissolved upon disposal of those matters. That would ensure that Committees do not set up Standing Sub-Committees, the danger being that the importance of the Sub-Committee could, in time, outweigh that of the parent Committee.
Several other safeguards have been incorporated into the new Standing Order. It has been made explicit that a Sub-Committee may not take a decision on behalf of the Committee. That is an important stipulation, as it ensures that the Sub-Committee cannot operate independently from the parent Committee.
The new Standing Order also proposes that a Sub- Committee’s quorum should be for the parent Committee to determine. Whether a minimum quorum should be set for Sub-Committees was a matter of some debate in the Committee on Procedures’ deliberations. In arriving at its decision, the Committee acknowledged concerns that full party participation might not be achieved in Sub-Committees. To set the quorum at two or three would not resolve that potential problem. However, the Committee was confident that the new Standing Order would make it explicitly clear that Sub-Committees cannot make decisions on behalf of the parent Committee but must make its recommendations to the full Committee. That would allow full party participation in the decision- making process.
The purpose of the new Standing Order is to clarify the existing provisions of Standing Order 52 and to give Committees greater flexibility to manage their work programme. The amendment is part of our ongoing programme to improve methods of doing business in the Assembly.
Amendment agreed to (with cross-community support).

Livestock and Meat Commission

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I beg to move
That this Assembly takes note of the Report from the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development on its Inquiry into the Livestock and Meat Commission (1/01R).
I call Members’ attention to the corrigenda that have been circulated. Members should keep that information for reference when reading the report. There has been a mix-up between "producers" and "processors," and it is important that the two groups be correctly referred to.
For Members unfamiliar with the subject of the inquiry, I shall set out some background information. The Livestock and Meat Commission for Northern Ireland (LMC) was founded by law in 1967. It had the task of providing services to the Northern Ireland red-meat industry, which is vital to our economy, and to advise the Department of Agriculture on other related matters. The LMC is an executive non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development.
To many farmers, the LMC is something of an enigma. They believe that it has become too closely aligned or too cosy with the meat processing companies and has lost sight of the farmers’ interests.
In other words, farmers are saying that the LMC is providing services to only one part of the red-meat industry and that its independence is compromised.
The LMC’s carcass classification service and the make-up of its board are also common causes of complaints from farmers. Against the background of such criticism, the Committee agreed to undertake the inquiry, and it concentrated on two parts of the LMC’s work — promotion and classification, and the way in which it is funded and its members are appointed.
First, I would like to thank those from all sectors of the industry who took part in the inquiry. The LMC gave its full co-operation throughout. Its chairman and the entire board accompanied the chief executive and marketing manager to one of the seven oral sessions that were held. The Committee also received 17 written submissions to the inquiry, for which we are most grateful.
Using that significant body of evidence, the Committee aimed to get under the skin of the LMC to discover whether the criticisms of it were justified and to offer constructive suggestions about how things might be improved. With the publication of our report, which we ask the Assembly to take note of, the Committee has achieved its aims.
The Committee makes a total of 33 recommendations, the majority of which are aimed at the LMC. A number are also aimed at the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development as the sponsoring Department of the LMC.
The Committee believes that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has a significant role to play in improving the sectoral balance of the LMC and in ensuring that it performs its statutory obligations in a manner that is seen to be totally impartial. Having considered the evidence, the Committee concluded that the LMC must re-invent itself to counteract farmers’ perceptions. The Committee believes that the LMC must demonstrate its impartiality and independence much more clearly than it does at present, and our recommendations will help it to do that.
I do not propose to list or explain all the report’s recommendations; however, I would like to highlight several of them. To begin with, the Committee considered producers’ concerns about the relationship between the LMC and the meat processing industry. We have called for the LMC to develop and publish a protocol in which it will define the purpose, level and frequency of all contact between it and the processing industry. That is an attempt to overcome the perceptions of cosiness while recognising that those bodies will need to work closely together at times.
The Committee also addressed producers’ disquiet about the fact that the current chairman of the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters Association also serves on the LMC board. The Committee has asked the LMC and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to consider the implications of such a situation in an attempt to avoid conflicts of interest.
Secondly, the Committee calls for a code of conduct to be drawn up to establish standards of behaviour expected of board members towards their home sector. Such a code would allow interested parties to make judgements on whether individuals were behaving in an appropriate manner. The code would apply as equally to farmers’ representatives as to those with links with the processing industry.
It is important to consider the fears about the major meat processors. The Committee invited them, through the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters Association, to participate in the inquiry. The Committee wanted to ensure that all sides of the argument were heard. The meat processors participated fully, which the Committee appreciated, although it did not see eye to eye with them on many topics.
However, it became clear that the meat exporters’ interest in the LMC begins and ends with its marketing role. That is, perhaps, understandable. Their livelihoods depend on securing markets and making profits. They forget that the LMC is meant to support the entire industry, not only one sector of it. That includes farmers who have spent time and money, and who have made strenuous efforts to provide the raw materials that allow processors to achieve their profits. Those profits are handsome in comparison to the farmers’ poor returns. I repeat that the profits of the processors cannot, in any way, be compared to the poor returns of the farming community.
At times, the meat exporters’ attitude to farmers had bordered on contempt. They said that it was not the issue that farmers did not know what promotional work the LMC was doing. They said that once-a-year producers and cattle dealers were out of touch with classification and that mixed farmers had little understanding of classification standards.
The meat exporters wanted the LMC board to be made up of captains of industry who could demonstrate their marketing vision and who understood the international marketing arena. They said that farmers were not the best people to be involved in marketing. They failed to recognise the imbalance caused by ignoring the most crucial part of the industry. In such a scenario, the meat exporters clearly consider the farmers’ needs, aspirations, opinions and expectations to be of little consequence.
From the evidence heard by the Committee, it was all too obvious why producers fear that, as they put it, the meat exporters control the LMC. It is necessary for the LMC to demonstrate that its commitment to producers is not compromised by its relationship with the meat processing industry. The Committee’s recommendations attempt to ensure that the correct balance is restored and that improper influence, perceived or otherwise, is no longer an issue.
The Committee made 10 recommendations on carcass classification. All sides recognised that that area caused greatest contention and farmer frustration. The Committee accepts that there will always be difficulties with such a subjective system, especially when the grade awarded can make such a substantial difference to the price paid to farmers. However, the Committee made an important discovery: the LMC’s classification staff are permitted, under EU legislation, to be wrong in 20% of all classifications.
I asked one of the LMC members whether he would tell employees that they could afford to make mistakes in 20% of all their classifications. He replied that he would do nothing of the sort. The Committee said that the LMC should be doing nothing of the sort. Frankly, the Committee was astonished, despite assurances by the LMC that its employees do not err to the permitted extent.
The rules do nothing to reassure producers. Some of our findings relate to the fundamental rights of producers to see and to understand how their animals are graded and to question the results. The Committee’s objective is that due respect be given to the farming community, that the classification service be applied impartially and consistently and that education about the service be targeted at those who need it most.
Funding is always an important issue, and the Committee made a series of recommendations in that regard. All sectors of the industry agreed that more funding for the LMC was necessary. Our inquiry established that Government support in varying degrees is provided to equivalent bodies in England, Wales, Scotland and the Republic of Ireland. The Committee’s recommendations seek to redress that imbalance and to provide continuity of funding, but to avoid the need for large increases of the slaughter levy paid by farmers. I emphasise our belief that the LMC should not be funded from the farmers’ pockets. The meat exporters advocated a large increase in that levy. However, the Committee was satisfied that no such increase could be justified, nor would it be sustainable, given the farmers’ present economic position. The main recommendation was for Government funding of the LMC’s promotional activities as part of a clear marketing strategy. That does not represent the Committee’s unconditional approval of the LMC’s promotional work; rather it asks the Department and the Executive to recognise the importance of the red-meat industry, and acknowledge that EU state-aid rules include an obligation to provide assistance with marketing and promoting the industry’s products.
In conclusion, the report is the Committee’s honest attempt, after spending many hours in interviews and debates, to make a real difference. It sets out to help to overcome some of the problems faced by the LMC, particularly with regard to how they communicate with, and are perceived by, their most important customers — the farmers.
I commend the report to the Assembly.

Mr Donovan McClelland: This is a time-limited debate, and I would be grateful if Members will limit their remarks to 10 minutes.

Mr George Savage: I support the motion and associate myself with the Chairperson’s comments on the report. It is an important piece of work, and I extend my thanks to everyone who participated in the inquiry.
I highlight two recommendations that were not covered in the Chairperson’s opening remarks. After we had finished taking evidence, but before the report was compiled, there was discussion in the agricultural press about the creation of an agricultural forum.
The Committee agreed that that was relevant to the inquiry into the Livestock and Meat Commission, particularly in view of the findings regarding communication with producers, and also throughout the supply chain. For that reason, in its report the Committee agreed to recommend that discussions should take place, which would lead to the development of such a forum. More specifically, the Committee has asked the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to facilitate those discussions, given that it has the necessary resources and accommodation. The proposal concerns development of the supply chain, which is in the Department’s remit.
The recommendation is consistent with those made by the Committee in previous reports. For example, in its report ‘Retailing in Northern Ireland’, the Committee asked the Department to develop a structure whereby retail expertise could be used to improve the export of Northern Ireland goods. The Committee also asked the Department to create a scheme that would allow groups of producers to avail of processor and retailer assistance and advice in areas such as training, marketing and consumer research. In its report ‘Restoring Profit for the Beef Producer’, the Committee asked the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development to create and lead a production task force that would consult with processors and retailers and focus on serving the markets better.
One stage of the chain has been overlooked; that of the consumer and the housewife. I am glad to see the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Chamber; she is both our Minister and a housewife. A major problem is staring every farmer in the face. The BSE crisis and other matters have helped to bring the agriculture industry down, but the cost to the housewife has remained unchanged. There is a profit of some 30 to 40 pence per kilo on beef. Where does that profit go?
The pig sector reported encouragement, better communication and co-operation among all elements of the supply chain. A properly organised forum could provide a better structure for the relationships in the supply chain. I hope that the Department accepts the Committee’s recommendation.
The Committee’s second recommendation seeks a thorough and transparent inquiry into the alleged practices of some meat plants in Northern Ireland. All those allegations fell outside the remit of the inquiry. Members agreed that they were relevant to it, given the Committee’s scrutiny of the carcass classification service. How can producers have confidence in a classification system that can be inconsistent in the application of standards and the awarding of rates? In fact, that might also be open to abuse, with meat plants changing grades once classification is complete. The allegations must be fully investigated in order to build producer confidence and to safeguard the markets in which the processors operate. Under European law regarding the classification of beef carcasses offered for sale, the Department is the competent authority and it must act quickly and decisively.
I commend the report to the Assembly. I will ask the Chairperson to ensure that the Committee follows up the two additional recommendations that I highlighted.

Mr P J Bradley: I apologise if I repeat points made during the in-depth analysis and presentations given by the Chairperson and the Deputy Chairperson of the Committee. I support the changes to the make-up of the LMC board. Those changes would result in all participants in the supply chain having full confidence in the LMC. Members of the board would then be seen to be acting impartially and independently, with a full understanding of the circumstances faced throughout the chain.
Producers must be represented in order to remove the element of doubt that is always present when the LMC’s role is being discussed. The board would gain more credibility with producers if the board of the commission adopted a policy of more all-inclusive membership. The imbalance would be addressed by increasing to nine the number of members of the board, and allocating a third of the positions to farmers. That would provide an ideal foundation on which to build improved relationships.
I support the view that members of the commission should be paid for attendance at meetings and when appointed to work in its interests. Producers should have some access to classifiers’ work. If the classifiers have such self-confidence in their work, and if access to that work improves business relationships, why should producers not have a right of access?
Some witnesses called for a better appeal procedure, while others even questioned its existence. The Ulster Farmers Union gave the considered opinion that the existing appeal procedure needs to be overhauled to make it more friendly to producers, and that a procedure must be implemented whereby all genuine enquiries and concerns would be fully addressed.
Widely used terms such as "openness", "transparency", "quality", and "best practice" spring to mind. Witnesses expressed many different views during the inquiry, but the word "Holstein" was quoted several times. That word seems to set off alarm bells for graders. If the graders did not know in advance that the carcass was a Holstein, I believe that the grades might have been different.
During the evidence sessions, we were told that grade prices varied from £1·70 per kilogram to £1·30 per kilogram. Since we received those figures in May, I have seen producers’ dockets on which the price has ranged from £1·25 to £1·15 for a batch of meal-fed Holsteins. I found the figures difficult to believe — we can only imagine how the producer felt.
Putting the issue of Holsteins aside, I share the concerns of the chairman of the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association (NIAPA). In written evidence, he stated that many farmers believed that grading standards must keep moving as producers continue to spend more on resources to improve their breeding stock. It appears to be a case of improvement without reward. That leads me to the issue of the 20% margin of error that classifiers are permitted, which was referred to earlier. That margin of error is difficult to accept from a professional body such as meat classifiers, and it must be reviewed. Perhaps farmers could be granted similar latitude when completing integrated administration and control system forms (IACS), but I doubt that that will happen. I appreciate that grading is not an exact science and that the number of grades that are in place at the moment are not helpful to anyone. However, I share the view of my Colleagues on the Committee that the classifiers’ performance must be made demonstrably better than it is at present in order to build all-round confidence in the payment and grading system.
I support the suggestion that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development should facilitate producer meetings with the LMC, in consultation with farmers’ representative organisations. A series of meetings would provide the opportunity for the LMC and the producers to exchange views, and for producers to learn more about the LMC’s activities. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development could also consider facilitating the proposal to develop an agricultural forum in order to structure the relationships between the LMC, the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters Association (NIMEA), producers, consumers and all other interested parties.
In the past I have called for information technology (IT), sponsored by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, to be made available in the homes of full-time farmers. With appropriate IT training, we could end the nightmare of bureaucracy and form completion that farmers currently face. It should be simple to devise a farmers’ computer programme that would be compatible with technology in the Divisional Veterinary Office and with the LMC. The provision of IT-accessible information from bodies such as the LMC would be a welcome factor in customer relationships. It would also keep the producer updated on relevant LMC information.
At no time did the Committee have a "let’s-get-LMC attitude". This was not a witch-hunt. Throughout the inquiry the Committee worked positively and constructively to improve relationships between all sectors of the beef industry. Naturally our prime concern was the interest of the farmer/producer. If beef production in Northern Ireland ceases, that will have a knock on effect on many in the agriculture industry.
I call on the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development to initiate an in-depth study of the Committee’s report, with a view to implementing the recommendations. The methods that must be implemented to secure the long-term well being of the producer, the LMC, the meat plants, the graders, and the general beef industry can be found in the pages of the report.

Mr Gerry McHugh: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I commend the report to the House. It forms a vital part of the inquiries that we have carried out on the agriculture industry. People in the industry — including some of those who gave evidence to the Committee — may well feel that the report’s criticisms are directed at them. However, there is a positive side to this also. The report contains 33 recommendations, together with the evidence collected. It is there for everyone to read.
I hope that the report will focus people’s attention in a way that has not been the case in the past. We have found through our work in the Assembly — and not only in agriculture issues — that there has been a tremendous lack of critical self-examination by industry, and especially by statutory bodies including the LMC. The agriculture industry tends to grind on without necessarily looking at things from the point of view of the individuals who go to make up the industry, such as the primary producers.
Many people may feel that the Committee of Agriculture and Rural Development is biased towards farmers, but that is not the case. The Committee is critically examining the entire situation and, in some instances, has tried to strike a balance on behalf of the producer. In examining what is sometimes conflicting evidence, the Committee has found that the bodies involved, the LMC in particular, have not taken farmers’ concerns and opinions into account, nor acted on those concerns. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development has a role to play as overseer of the industry. In order for there to be an industry in the future, it will have to work as a unit. It cannot operate in separation, with some parts making a profit while others do not. If the industry does not work as one unit, we will have no farming industry here, and we do not want that to happen. That is part of the reason why we have carried out inquiries and targeted groups such as the LMC.
Concerns have been voiced about an inquiry that was conducted by the Department before 2000 and which was not published. This inquiry is, therefore, timely.
The LMC’s role is to support the livestock industry and provide services for the processors. Many people who have given evidence to the Committee have expressed concern about some of the LMC’s relationships and its impartiality. It is a difficult issue. I do not know how it is going to be resolved, but it must be resolved. Many farmers perceive that they are being blamed for not taking action, or for not being capable of taking action. For example, as regards grading, many farmers feel that they are being accused — not only by the LMC but, in some instances, by NIMEA — of not being up to the job because they are not large-scale meat producers. We do not want to reach the stage where all farmers in this part of Ireland have to become large-scale producers like those in Argentina. We can never reach that level of production. We will never reach a situation where farmers are committed to large-scale production. We will always have family-size farms and the difficulties associated with them. The blame has been pointed in the wrong direction. It should have been apportioned even-handedly. It was not.
Other difficulties about the LMC were raised by many in the farming industry. Farmers — the primary producers — felt that they were under-represented and that their point of view was not being heard. There were no female representatives. The way appointments were made was mentioned and also the fact that the individuals appointed could sit on other boards. All these things are important. Farmers have always felt that everyone else is against them. We require clarity of purpose for each individual member. Are particular interests being neglected if someone is sitting on two boards? If so, that needs to be changed for the betterment of everyone.
The classification system was probably the most contentious issue for farmers. The grading of animals is one of the services provided by the LMC. Who gets the most out of that, the producer or the processor? For farmers, the question of value for money was a concern. The amount they pay to rear each animal — for little return in many instances — is a problem. In a previous report we read about alleged cartels among the processors. It may be no more than a perception. However, it has never been developed any further than that.
There is a communication problem between the LMC, the processors and the producers which needs to be put right. Both the Ulster Farmers Union and the Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers Association mentioned this. This is a critical point, and we have made recommendations to deal with it.
The promotional activities of the LMC were also focused upon. Everything was going well before BSE and foot-and-mouth disease struck. Farmers were receiving good prices. Now things are totally different. Markets came under particular pressure at that point, and we have to ask questions about the type of markets that are available. The processors and large supermarkets do not really mind where they source their raw produce. They are happy enough to go to Argentina or Brazil, and both countries have said that they are going to treble their output of beef in the next three years. This is what we are up against. Most of our beef is sold in the British market, with small amounts sold in the European market. Farmers feel they are paying for something that is not really happening. They are not getting to the wider markets, so why should they bother paying at all?
Quality assurance is an extra pressure and expense for farmers, and they do not necessarily gain anything from it, as it is not directly connected with the production of beef. Beef from farms that are quality assured and beef from farms that are not probably go to the same markets and achieve the same prices. This week, the price is 65p per kilo for heifers in local markets. A farmer selling at that sort of price has to ask what is in it for him when steak costs around £14.
These are the difficulties as farmers see them. Everything will have to change over time, and we need to find a way forward. Our recommendations certainly point the way. The retailers, the LMC, the NIMEA, the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development and everyone else have to take account of each and every one of those recommendations. I have been told that some of them will not be taken into account, but most have much to offer.
Another point raised concerns a 20% error rate in the grading classification. That should not be the case, but those things have only come to light through the report. There is far too much inbuilt leeway. We have produced a positive report, but there is much justified criticism. However, it should be seen in a positive light, because we want to improve the industry’s future for everyone, particularly the producers who have not been looked after so far. Go raibh maith agat.

Mr Boyd Douglas: I too welcome the report. There seems to be a great gulf between producers and the LMC. Producers see the commission as too closely aligned with the meat processors. Reasons for that perception include the inadequate producer element on the LMC board and the apparent processor bias given the number of seats producers hold.
It is imperative that a body that promotes our meat has the necessary expertise of the processing sector, but is it necessary to have the chairman of NIMEA and the directors of two of our major meat processors on the board, with only two part-time farmers? It is difficult to understand how a balance can be achieved.
To correct the perceived bias, we must have a fully transparent and independent nomination and appointment process which is representative of all. If that can be achieved by more openness, perhaps farmers will come to have a greater affinity with the LMC, which should be their board after all. They fund it, and it should be for the benefit of everyone.
We must give credit to the LMC for its work in promoting Northern Ireland meat. That is an important aspect of the meat industry which must be pursued vigorously. I am glad to see the continued pursuit of international markets and the contracts that have been established with potential customers to ensure that, when the European market opens up again, there are good relationships to build on.
We must remember that pre-BSE, when beef was trading at a top price of 240 pence per kilo, as opposed to 160 pence today, that price was obtained by successful exports to Europe through the greenfield brands and a more favourable exchange rate. The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development must press for low-incidence BSE status again soon, so that at least one of those variables can come into play and, I hope, lead to the re-establishment of Northern Ireland beef on the premium market which it deserves.
Unfortunately we cannot control the exchange rate, so we must work on the export factor to increase competition in the marketplace. The LMC can market produce both at home and internationally, but the programme must be funded, and that is a point of contention among producers and processors.
One of the main problems is that any additional levy collected from processors always finds its way out of the producers’ pockets. As processors protect their profits no matter what happens, producers need more information on the promotional activities, funded by them, that are carried out by the LMC and the processors. They might then be more willing to consider a small increase in funding, perhaps through a transaction levy at a low level, to ensure that funding comes from the whole food chain and not just the producers.
Many producers feel that most of their levies support grading, and due to their bad experiences with that system they are reluctant to fund such activities. Farmers do not like the words "carcass classification", and the majority of producers do not do not like the present system. The LMC maintains that it is lenient and biased towards the farmers, but that is strongly refuted by most producers. The main tenet of this is the reluctance to have farmers see their cattle graded and the reluctance of the meat processors to have the producer there to see cattle being classified.
Variations of 20%, as the report states, are too high and must be drastically reduced. A 1% difference in classification can result in a 6p per kilo differential in the cost of a carcass, which equates to approximately £30 per animal. That is unacceptable and must be improved on; alternatively, new subjective systems, which are now available mechanically, must be adopted. Producers must be reassured by being actively brought into the system and educated regarding the reasons for giving particular grades. Undoubtedly the producers have their part to play in producing carcasses that meet the demands of today’s markets.
Unfortunately, because of the MacSharry proposals in the early 1990s, farmers have not so much been encouraged to keep more cattle, as they have had to keep more cattle to be able to survive and to make a profit. There was little encouragement for farmers to produce better quality. They just kept higher numbers in order to survive. Perhaps that needs to be addressed.
The Department should be congratulated on its attempts to educate farmers through the colleges regarding keeping better cattle so that we have better carcasses. Ultimately there are some cattle that do not meet the higher standards that are now needed in the world. Much more must be done through the farming community and through LMC to promote better cattle for today’s markets.
The report is a well-balanced reflection of the LMC’s operation. Its recommendations seek, to help advance the aims of the organisation by making it more transparent, farmer-friendly and responsive to the long- term needs of the industry. After all, there is an important job to be done in promoting the Northern Ireland meat industry, and we must have a strong and progressive organisation to do that.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: I welcome the opportunity for the Assembly to take note of another report by the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee. I support the comments of the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson. I thank our Committee Clerk and staff, and all who participated in the Committee, on coming up with another excellent report.
We are here to take note of the report, and I understand that the Minister will want some time to study it in detail and consider the recommendations and their implications, both for the LMC and for her Department. I look forward to another debate on the details of the report at a later stage. I hope that by that time the Minister will have responded and will have prompted some action to deal with our recommendations.
However, it is important to sound a note of warning and caution. I hope that this report does not suffer the same fate as the other three reports that our Committee has produced: they are published and the fundamental matters that we address are considered, but nothing else appears to happen. I have no doubt that today all sides will unite and endorse the report. Unfortunately, that is where it all appears to come to an end.
There is a sigh of relief after public representatives have spoken on these matters, but no action appears to flow from them. As a result of our previous reports, the Department has implemented the minimum, not the maximum, amount of activity. The Department has other issues and its own agenda, but it is important that these issues are taken up and implemented as fully as possible.
What I am going to say next is not just a criticism of the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, it is a criticism of all Departments. Indeed, it is a criticism of Government generally. Departments appear to be a big, amorphous sponge. They are able to soak up all the criticism.
They are able to note all the concerns, but without any apparent change on the surface. There is no change in direction or policy, and no change in legislation. The only Bill that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development had to give time to was the Dogs (Amendment) Bill — a minor piece of legislation — and that was in the previous session.
12.00
Sooner or later, someone is going to look at our Government and ask whether they are doing anything that is more strategically helpful to local farmers than previous Administrations did. If we have to search to see whether we are making a difference, the Administration, in general, fail the test. We must face up to that. All the excuses of the day will be levelled at me for those remarks, such as the fact that our hands are tied by regulations from Europe and by European Directives, or that we have had a major foot-and-mouth disease crisis. I accept that.
However, such problems limit what is possible; they do not prevent the Government from taking action. We must not allow the Department, or any Administration, to padlock itself into a cage and stand still. The world goes on in spite of those crises and setbacks. The Administration will be judged on how they work through those crises to achieve their goals.
A report from the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development is before the Assembly. Previously, after debating such reports, the Committee was right to anticipate action from the Department in view of the unanimous endorsement that those reports received. I hope that the Minister will say today that, if this report also receives a unanimous endorsement, it will not suffer the fate of previous reports and action will be taken.
It would be disgraceful if the report were shelved. I hope that the Department is prepared to implement the report’s recommendations that directly affect it. If the Minister is prepared to implement them, I hope that she will be able to provide us with a timescale for implementation. We can only judge the Department by the timescale that it sets, and it should let us know whether it has a timescale in mind. It is important for Members to know the answers to those questions; otherwise we are wasting our time, and we do not want to feel that we are doing that.
The Chairperson has said that it is time for the LMC to re-invent itself, and I agree with other Members on that. If it is time for the LMC to re-invent itself, the Minister must take the necessary action to bring that about. Does the Minister agree that the producers do not perceive the LMC in a favourable light? Does the Minster agree that the LMC requires more than a makeover and, if so, what is she going to do about it?
I refer to paragraphs 2.1 and 3.4 of the recommendations of the executive summary about the perception and communication of the LMC. It is important to put on the record the points that have been summarised in the report. The report states that
"Both the Committee and representatives of producers believe that the relationship between the LMC and the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters Association (NIMEA) is perceived as being too close, compromising the independence of the LMC in the eyes of the producers."
It is important that the recommendations to deal with that are fully implemented. It goes on to say that there is
"poor communication between the LMC and producers. This has contributed to suspicion and scepticism on behalf of the producer in relation to a range of LMC activities and must be addressed."
On page 207 we see NIMEA’s paranoia in a submission that it made to us. One of the members of that body, instead of addressing the issue of communication between the LMC and the producer, spent two or three paragraphs criticising the Committee for raising that matter. That shows that either paranoia exists at the LMC and within NIMEA or there is a failure even to recognise that the producer has a legitimate concern, which the Committee attempted to get them to address. It is essential that the LMC and NIMEA tackle that issue. The criticisms that were made on page 207 by NIMEA were fundamentally wrong. Until NIMEA faces up to that and realises that the Committee’s comments and its activities were designed to help the entire industry, it will continue to miss the point.
The Committee made several recommendations on funding and levy charges. We did not make them lightly, but we received a caveat that the Committee could support such a move only if producers here were receiving similar prices to those that their colleagues in Great Britain were getting. That is certainly not the case at present. We list seven or eight issues that relate to funding, which we hope the Minister and the LMC will be able to address, if not today, then when the Minister has had an opportunity to consider them in detail. We should not ask the Minister for a knee-jerk response to those important matters, which have important implications for the entire industry.
Is the Department going to invest in a new and more accurate classification system? That is important. The LMC does not have the resources to do that. The responsibility falls to the Department, and in paragraphs 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 of the report we have highlighted some of our concerns in that regard. The Committee thinks that the accepted standard error in classification of 20% is too high and that actual performance must be regularly assessed should an error rate occur between 5% and 10%.
Farmers are dissuaded from viewing the grading of their animals. We recommend that farmers should be able to see their animals being graded, and we ask the Minister to implement that recommendation.
I hope that the Minister accepts that much of the concerns and animosity among the producer, the LMC and NIMEA arise from the perceived grading problems. The sooner that we have new technology in that area, the better for us all. I hope that the Department will respond to that request by providing the LMC with the resources and equipment that it requires.

Mr Billy Armstrong: I commend the report to the Assembly. In recent times, the LMC has failed to demonstrate independence and even-handedness in its work. The perception of the commission by farmers is relatively negative in various areas. In turn, that reflects on the flow of the entire supply chain.
The Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development’s duty is to investigate such matters with the aim of creating an environment in which farmers can maximise their potential, and in which housewives can get value for money and products of the highest quality. It is our intention to raise concerns and make recommendations to ensure that agriculture in Northern Ireland is a viable industry.
The investigation found that the current system of animal classification is ambiguous, confusing and unaccountable. It is unacceptable that one in five animals receive a classification that is not totally correct. I reaffirm the report’s recommendation that farmers should be encouraged to view the grading of their beef cattle. Producers must be clear about the process, and their animals should receive a fair grade.
LMC officials are seen to be partial to the interests of the processors. A system of appeals should be set up to safeguard producers’ interests further. Immediate steps must be taken to restore farmers’ confidence.
I support a reduction in the number of payment grades to make the system clearer. There could be around 25 different grades.
Does the housewife benefit from the present system? I do not believe so. I welcome the initiative on mechanical grading, which will help to reduce the extent of human error and inconsistency in the grading process.
The current links between the LMC and NIMEA are too close to allow farmers to have confidence in the LMC. It is unacceptable that the chairperson of NIMEA also sits on the LMC board. It is vital for the LMC to extend its grading process to benefit the consumer — our families. Consumers should be informed of the quality grade of meat products on display at retail outlets.
Finally, the LMC should work for the benefit of the farmer and monitor the complete supply chain. If Northern Ireland’s agriculture industry were to disappear, there would be no need for the LMC. We all know the pressure that the agriculture sector is under these days. It is unacceptable that the primary producer has been made to feel alienated by the present workings of the LMC. I therefore encourage the LMC to take on board the Committee’s recommendations and give confidence to the Northern Ireland farmers, thus enabling them to meet the needs of the consumer and processors.

Mr John Dallat: The inquiry could be a milestone on the way to recovery for the red meat industry. I would not be so worried about the report gathering dust on the Minister’s shelves; I would be more concerned about there being no Minister, because the LMC, like many other organisations, did its own thing during direct rule. It was answerable to no one.
Given that democracy will continue, the LMC cannot ignore the report’s recommendations. If common sense prevails, the LMC will have to accept the findings and begin the process of rebuilding confidence, which is critical to the farming industry.
Without doubt, there is a serious image problem, but it goes much further than that. The LMC must convince the farming industry that it is totally impartial, independent and in no way influenced by the processors. That is no mean task, but it must begin immediately. The present conflict serves only to sap the industry of its energy and vision for the future. Reference has been made to funding, which is critical to the efficiency of any modern organisation involved in such important work. Consultation and sensitivity are required if radical changes are to occur.
The report concludes that the classification service is the major problem, and the Committee advocates a much greater degree of separation between the classification service and the LMC’s other activities. The margin for error in classification performance is too great. It results in a serious lack of confidence — a confidence that must be rebuilt. There is a perception that the primary producer is undervalued by the rest of the supply chain. That is totally unacceptable.
Several Members have referred to marketing, which is one of the most critical aspects of our meat industry. However, I was not convinced that the issue was addressed with the degree of enthusiasm that it deserved. The LMC certainly failed to convince us of its success in that respect. Whatever the truth is, there is no doubt that more visible work on the domestic market would be beneficial.
Appointments have also been mentioned. They are often a contentious issue, and nowhere more so than in relation to the LMC. The report contains positive and useful recommendations to make the LMC more talented and representative in carrying out its duties. It would be foolish to ignore those recommendations.
Much of the concern expressed in the report relates to transparency and how the LMC carries out its functions. There is genuine concern that processors have undue influence and that that is to detrimental to the farming industry. The report’s recommendations are intended to bring improvements to the operation of the LMC and to the greater interest of the red-meat industry.
I have no doubt that the Department will give every assistance to the LMC to repackage itself as an organisation that is free from unfair influence and that is dynamic enough to change for the common good of everyone.

Mr Gardiner Kane: I support the motion. The inquiry into the LMC has been extensive, and those Members who are not directly involved in farming may be surprised by the diverse role that the commission plays in modern livestock farming. The commission’s role is extensive and so too must be its obligation to its largest contributor — the farmer. That is why, almost unfailingly, farmers’ representative organisations have questioned the level of farmer representation on the LMC board.
Farmers demand nothing less than appropriate representation on a body that claims to act impartially between them and the processors. It is hoped that the recommendations to resolve that problem will be adhered to.
LMC funding is fraught with controversy. Producers who have received minimum returns for produce are compelled to pay, whereas processors — and everyone knows how well they have done — contribute voluntarily. Not one farmer in the Province is fooled. Farmers know that the processors’ stake is all too easily recovered from the producers, and the belief is that a stake from processors will serve only to increase the control of the sector over the LMC’s activities. Therefore it is time to review the make-up and size of the commission board as contained in the recommendations.
Classification has been an area of extreme difficulty. Despite that difficulty, it is essential that those who carry out the task do so with impunity. Producers must be assured that the grading of animal carcasses will be done subjectively. An animal’s value can be changed considerably by the grade awarded to it. The increasingly disturbing scenario is that classification is conducted by staff recruited by the processors. That is a daunting prospect and will render as useless any recommendations contained in the inquiry document. Members must act quickly in the event of such a development.
The LMC’s reaction to strong branding of Northern Ireland’s meat products has been lukewarm. Instead, it has favoured a farm quality assurance scheme as a more effective marketing tool. That is not as acceptable to producers, who have to pay up to £50 per year to participate in the scheme. Green Field was an effective selling brand for Northern Ireland beef before the BSE crisis. There is a strong suspicion that because the commission and the processors are so closely associated, and because a poorly administered farm quality assurance scheme means that all sorts of products are successfully marketed under the farm quality assurance scheme, that is the reason that the scheme was chosen over the branding approach.
It is also striking that even though the LMC is aware of price quotes for cattle and sheep — indeed, it compiles the figures in Northern Ireland — it has not questioned the disparity in price between the Province and the rest of the United Kingdom.
The inquiry has been extensive and protracted, but its recommendations are clear. The Assembly looks forward to the LMC’s speedy adoption of the Committee’s recommendations, not least its active participation in an agriforum. The agriculture industry eagerly awaits changes as a result of the proposals. Therefore, the onus is on senior figures in the commission to act or to accept the responsibility for the delay.

Mr Edwin Poots: I support the report. However, part of our problem is that Northern Ireland beef producers cannot export. As has been highlighted, differences exist between the views of processors and producers. There is not as great a disparity between the producers and processors in other sectors of agriculture as there is in the beef sector, the reason being that since BSE the processors have been able to wring the producers for every penny.
The producers have been suffering ever since the ban was put in place, so there is a great burden on political representatives, especially the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, to see that the ban is lifted at the earliest opportunity. Until that happens, we shall not have a level playing field.
Members have highlighted the problem that allows 20% of grades to be wrong. I do not want to go any further with that as it has been spoken about for long enough. However, there are 42 different grades for animals, and there is a disparity of 60p per kilo, which could result in a difference of anything from £150 to £300 in the price of an animal. That should be addressed. Therefore, many grades are unnecessary, and we could have a much tighter grading system.
The grading system should be transparent so that producers feel that they are getting fair grades for their animals. I am concerned that the Vision Group’s report considers transferring responsibility for carcass classifications from the LMC to the meat companies. Much of what we have heard this morning and read in the report has shown that producers are greatly dissatisfied with the meat companies. However, the Vision Group suggests that we should transfer responsibility for grading animals to the people who will buy them. The processors had the producers in a difficult position before, and to transfer grading to the processors will put the producers in an even more difficult position. I trust that when the Minister looks at the Vision Group’s report she will throw that recommendation out of the window and have no truck with it.
The processors have said that levies should be passed on to the markets, so that every time an animal goes through the market there should be a levy on it. That would be wrong. Hill-sheep farmers bring their store lambs down from the hills each year to sell on to the lowland producers who buy lambs for fattening. If a levy were put on the market, lambs could be levied two or three times. That would be wholly unfair and go against the markets and, again, the producers.
I wish to express a note of caution. The markets offer an alternative for producers, which is why the meat plants do not like them. Where lambs can be exported, the markets allow farmers to maximise their returns in the conditions prevailing. Therefore, it would benefit the processors if the markets were hit with that levy.
I welcome the recommendation that a processor levy, fairly applied on a statutory basis, be imposed. The processors are currently paying that levy voluntarily, and they appeared to emphasise their generosity in their submissions by pointing out that they give that money to the LMC.
They have received a reasonable return for their benevolence, but it would be fairer for a statutory levy to be imposed on all processors.

Ms Brid Rodgers: The LMC is a significant organisation in the Northern Ireland red-meat industry. It has a specific responsibility to advise the Government on industry- related matters, and it provides important services to the industry. It is therefore appropriate that the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development has undertaken an inquiry into the LMC’s activities. I welcome the publication of its report.
It would be inappropriate to give a detailed response to the report’s recommendations because I received it only a few days ago, and it needs to be reflected on and studied properly. The Committee has asked me to respond in substantive terms in due course and I will do so, taking account of Members’ comments made today.
In reference to the main recommendations of the report, the future funding of the LMC is an important issue. Nearly all the reserves that had been built up for several years have been used to help the LMC to undertake core activities. It is 13 years since the levy was increased, and another increase will be necessary if those core activities are to continue. I shall issue draft legislation for consultation to provide for an increase in the levy and to make statutory the levy currently paid voluntarily by processors. The size of that increase will be determined after the consultation process. I note the Committee’s view that the increase should be limited to the rate of inflation.
I note also the Committee’s comments on the classification service and the series of recommendations addressed to the Department and the LMC. The majority of contributors to the debate referred to classification. I recognise that, by its very nature, classification is a subjective process and that it is often, therefore, a controversial one. Undoubtedly, a mechanical system would provide the necessary objectivity, which , it is to be hoped, would remove a large element of the controversy. I agree with the Committee that we should work towards the development of a satisfactory mechanical system, although it would take some time to develop such a system and to achieve EU approval. In the meantime, I shall study the report’s recommendations on the present system.
The Committee has also asked the LMC to consider recommendations that relate to its promotional activities, especially in the domestic market. I look forward to reading the LMC’s response. The LMC undertakes considerable work in the local market at retail level. Moreover, it encourages young people — the consumers of tomorrow — to understand the nutritional value of Northern Ireland red meat. I was pleased to be able to assist the LMC in the launch of its summer lamb promotional campaign, an evaluation of which will soon be completed.
The Committee also made recommendations on the appointment of members to the LMC board. That issue was also discussed today by Mr Bradley, Mr McHugh and Mr Dallat, among others. I shall consider the matter in full. Reference was made to the regrettable absence of women on the LMC board. In the past, the board included a few women, but not enough of them. When the most recent advertisement for members was published, no women applied for the post, despite the fact that they were encouraged to apply. Women have a substantial contribution to make, especially in the area of marketing.
When forwarding the report, the Deputy Chairperson, Mr Savage, asked me to consider it in the context of a forthcoming appointment to fill a vacancy in the LMC that will arise at the end of the year. The appointment process has already started, but I assure Mr Savage and the Assembly that the skills and qualities required for that post were discussed fully with the chairman of the LMC before the advertisement was finalised. That advertisement will appear in the agriculture press, and the relevant industry organisations will be notified of the vacancy.
Mr Savage and Mr Bradley asked about the facilitation by the Department of discussions between the LMC and the producers. I am happy to confirm that the Department’s facilities are available for meetings between the two bodies. They have been used for that purpose in the past. I agree with Mr Bradley’s comments on the need for co-operation among all parties involved in the food chain and his recognition of the interdependence that exists throughout the chain.
Mr Paisley Jnr referred to the problem of perceptions. I may have powers, but I do not have the power to change perceptions, especially in Northern Ireland. If I did have that power, we might have a different society.
In relation to Mr McHugh’s point about the quinquennial review report, the final report was made available to the main industry organisations last year. I delayed its formal publication pending the outcome of the Committee’s inquiry into the LMC. I have already told the Committee that I shall publish the review report as part of my response to its inquiry.
Mr Paisley Jnr made a point about my response to earlier reports. I have responded to the recommendations made in the Committee’s previous reports where appropriate, and I have implemented them where appropriate. Not all recommendations can be implemented, because I must take account of wider issues, which include, unfortunately, budgetary considerations. Those represent a considerable constraint.
I agree with Mr Douglas’s point about the importance of quality. I thank him for his remarks about the Department’s efforts to deal with that important issue. The Department injected £2 million into the beef quality initiative, and it is hoped that that will bear fruit and improve quality.
Mr Poots mentioned the reopening of the marts. I am aware of the importance of that issue, and I am working hard on it. The Department is speeding up BSE testing in the hope that it can make a substantial case for reopening the marts by the end of the year. I have already spoken to Commissioner Byrne about this matter, and he is sympathetic. I have also spoken to Lord Whitty, who has agreed to support me when I go to Europe.
In a report published last week, I note that the National Beef Association (NBA) suggests that we should wait until the case is made for the whole of the UK, which would probably happen at a later date. In relation to Mr Poots’s comments, it would be extremely unfortunate if, because of the DUP’s point of view and current events, I were not in a position to pursue our case when the time comes. It will certainly not be in the interests of the Northern Ireland industry if the case for low-incidence BSE status is not pursued by a local Minister, as I have done.
I agree with Mr Poots’s comments about the importance of lamb exports, and I am sure that he will agree that if a local Administration, led by a local Minister, had not been in a position to achieve regionalisation for Northern Ireland, we would not be exporting our lamb now. That issue underlines the importance of retaining our local Administration and of setting aside political stunts. I am serious about that, because the agriculture industry is in a serious position. We have been through difficult times, and it is important that we should be in a position to deal with all the issues as soon as possible.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: I welcome the debate, which has been useful in highlighting the report’s main points. It is an important report, given the financial interests of farmers, the operation of the LMC, and the concerns and allegations that were made to the Committee during the inquiry. The Committee did not initiate the criticisms. The criticisms came from witnesses, and the report lists those legitimate criticisms. Some people may think that the Committee simply sat down, calculated the number of things that it could say, and put them on paper. That is utter nonsense. What is on paper is hard evidence, tested by close enquiry and cross-examination. The report reflects the views of farmers and of workers in the meat industry.
I agree with the comments of the Deputy Chairperson of the Agriculture and Rural Development Committee, Mr Savage. The Committee will follow up the issues of meat plants and the agriculture forum.
Our report has been published at a time when there is a great deal of interest in another report, ‘Vision for the Future of the Agri-Food Industry’. The Committee will meet the authors of that report shortly to compare our recommendations with those in the Vision Group’s report before we draw our conclusions.
I regret that the Vision Group report proposes that the whole issue of classification be handed over to the meat companies. I am amazed at that recommendation, which falls completely contrary to the Committee’s examination of the evidence. However, debate is healthy. The Committee welcomes the meeting with the Vision Group, and those matters will, no doubt, be discussed at length.
The Committee did not expect the Minister to give a considered response to the report, and it is glad that she did not. If she had given a considered response, it would have been a dismissal of the report. The Minister will study the report and may ask for further amplification. The Committee welcomes the fact that the report will be studied carefully — it certainly deserves to be.
I hope that the LMC itself will look at the report. I hear that one person has already dismissed it by saying that the Committee had no right to even consider those matters. As long as this elected body exists, it has the right under law to look into those matters and, no matter who is angry or who does not like it, we shall look into it and give our answers. We shall hear people’s legitimate complaints and criticisms. The processing side of the industry has said that it is content with the LMC’s work. Why would it not be content, given the cosy relationship that the processors have enjoyed with the LMC? The primary producer side sees things very differently, and those matters must be commented on.
I take off my cap as Committee Chairman in order to reply to the political point that the Minister made. If her party had walked into the Lobbies yesterday with the majority of the House, cross-community support would have been established, and the Assembly would have been unable to fall. It was because her party walked into the wrong Lobby that it will be responsible for bringing down the Assembly. I regret that I must say that, but when the Minister takes sides and lectures people on an issue that has nothing to do with politics, the world must hear that, had she and her party said loudly and clearly that there are Nationalists who want decommissioning and who want it now, the Assembly would not be in jeopardy.
I trust that this debate will continue, that the farming community will be given its rights and that future Committees appointed by the Department will be fairly appointed, giving representation to all sides of the community.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly takes note of the Report from the Committee for Agriculture and Rural Development on its Inquiry into the Livestock and Meat Commission (1/01R).
The sitting was suspended at 12.39 pm.
On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair) —

Threshold Assessment (Northern Ireland)

The following motion stood in the Order Paper:
That this Assembly believes that the ‘Threshold Assessment (Northern Ireland)’ does not provide equality for all members of the teaching profession. — [Mr B Hutchinson]
Motion not moved.

Safeguarding Industries in Northern Ireland

Mr David McClarty: I beg to move
That this Assembly, realising the full extent of international terrorism, resolves that the Executive should re-double its efforts to safeguard existing industries in Northern Ireland and give maximum support to agencies responsible for the generation of new national and international investment.
I am painfully aware that the announcements of job losses and cutbacks in the past fortnight could be the tip of the iceberg. That gives me all the more reason to feel disappointed that the Benches are so empty this afternoon.
We all recognise the pain of unemployment. We all know people who have had their dreams shattered virtually overnight. We all know entrepreneurs — many of them self-made people — who wait anxiously to see how their enterprises will fare in the coming turbulent months.
The real tragedy is that Northern Ireland had been performing so impressively before the onset of global slow-down and the horrendous events of 11 September. It is worth reminding the House of the achievements of the local economy. In the past three years the IDB has promoted a total of over 21,000 jobs, of which 16,200 were with externally-owned companies and almost 4,000 with companies that are locally–owned.
From 1995 to 2000, the figures are even more impressive. In that period Northern Ireland attracted over £300 million in new foreign direct investment, and a further £1·6 billion from overseas firms already located in the Province. Almost 40,000 new jobs were promoted and sustained by foreign direct investment.
Rising productivity and consistent growth in overall competitiveness are features of a modern, progressive and outward-looking economy. Our performance has easily outstripped that of the rest of the United Kingdom. In the year to March 2001 output rose by 8·1%, compared to the UK average of 1·2%. Output in techology-led sectors such as electrical and optical equipment increased by 229% in the past five years, while the UK figure stood at 41%.
Our export performance has been nothing short of remarkable. Even with difficult sterling exchange rates, exports were up 14·2% in 1999-2000. In the year to June 2001, export markets outside the European Union jumped by 20% to represent almost half of Northern Ireland’s exports, now accounting for 39% of our total sales.
We are succeeding, but the task is far from complete. Global slowdown and the prospect of a full-blown recession will mean retrenchment, economic hardship and the prospect of only modest growth. If nothing else, the economic indicators that I relayed to the House tell us that we are, perhaps, better placed to meet whatever crisis arises. As the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment acknowledged last week, we must brace ourselves for further job losses, gloomy news and economic reversals that threaten our manufacturing and service sectors.
We need a co-ordinated, joined-up approach to counter the threat. We need Government Departments to work under the direction of the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment to plot a course that will see us able to offer assistance to safeguard jobs and businesses, and we must redouble our efforts to attract new national and international investment. We saw the first signs of that last week when Sir Reg Empey told the House that he had suggested a range of measures to Downing Street and the Department of Trade and Industry to alleviate the problems at Bombardier Aerospace. In the case of B/E Aerospace (UK) Ltd, Kilkeel, specific, speedy and practical help was extended to protect employment in a TSN area.
As far as the crisis facing the aerospace industry is concerned, the Administration made representations to British Airways and Aer Lingus, who announced their decisions to withdraw from Belfast International Airport’s Heathrow and Shannon routes. Other companies in that hard-pressed sector should be encouraged, particularly British European and Easyjet. This morning, British European announced the addition of two daily services from Belfast City Airport to London City Airport. British European’s managing director, Mr Jim French, confirmed the company’s takeover of the Belfast City to Newcastle route following the demise of Gill Airways. British European flies about 800,000 passengers per year to and from Belfast, a figure that will rise due to the latest developments. If Easyjet gets its way, the route from Belfast International Airport to Heathrow will be safeguarded, and I was pleased to note British Midland’s decision last week to operate four daily services from Belfast International Airport to Heathrow.
In this unfolding and fluid situation, some companies are clearly suffering and, at the same time, there are companies that are poised to exploit a commercial advantage or fill a gap in the marketplace. These airlines are demonstrating enterprise, and, in British European’s case, the commitment made today is timely and welcome.
My constituency, East Londonderry, has not been immune to the recent economic downturn. Coleraine’s largest manufacturing employer, AVX Ltd, has had to lay off approximately 200 people in recent months. Although it has experienced a slight improvement in recent weeks, it is still much too soon to gauge the effects of the global slowdown and the events of 11 September on that sector of the market. The textile industry in my constituency has also suffered adversely with many redundancies and closures.
Manufacturing is not the only sector that is suffering. No economic sector has greater potential in Northern Ireland than tourism. In recent years, we have witnessed a steady increase in the number of visitors to the Province. However, the figures still fall short of the potential that could be achieved. There is little doubt that, if the current global war on terrorism continues or escalates, it will have an effect on the number of tourists who are willing to cross the Atlantic to Ireland and Northern Ireland. We may suffer a significant downturn in our North American and, to some extent, European markets. In recent years, we have welcomed international hotel chains, such as the Radisson Hotel in my constituency, to Belfast and other parts of the Province. We must safeguard these trends.
As the supply side continues to increase, we must work on the demand side. The vagaries of our weather dictate that we must encourage demand for a shoulder season and off-peak and event-led tourism. We have excellent hotels, conference and sporting venues as well as a great outdoors. Those should all be adequately marketed to a national and international audience in order to encourage their investment in our tourist product. Running parallel to that is the necessity to address key issues in the sector such as hospitality training and recruitment challenges, as well as providing efficient transport and infrastructure networks.
Retaliation against international terrorism began on Sunday and, as we meet today, it is being prosecuted vigorously. Undoubtedly, there will be consequences for the Northern Ireland economy — some good, some adverse. Terrorism — either of the home-grown variety or in the form of the Taliban — must not be allowed to succeed. Northern Ireland needs stability more than anything. It needs the opportunity to advance on the basis of the gains already made. I appeal to the Members of this House by saying that the stability we need must come in the form of decommissioning. I make no apology for saying to Republicans directly: "Decommission now, not only for your own sake, but for the sake of the entire community as we try to protect our manufacturing and business base against a slow-down or a recession that is likely to test our ability to the limit." I trust that the motion will attract unanimous support from all sides of the House.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: I am pleased to support the motion because it is timely and useful. The events of 11 September 2001 will turn out to be pivotal for our immediate and future economic state. When those events occurred. I was trapped with the proposer of the motion and others in Brussels airport en route to Denmark to look at some of the major energy issues facing us. I could not help thinking that the events in New York made our work seem out of context; that if those events were to realise their full impact, energy might not be the major issue we thought it was.
Everything changed that day — some things will never be the same again. However, the downturn had already begun; over the previous 18 months we had seen evidence of it through the demise of some dot-com companies. That downturn has accelerated.
The first clear message that the House should learn from the events of 11 September is that we have a global economy. Within hours of their taking place, the events in New York led to the threat — and in some cases more than just the threat — of insolvency for numerous American and European airlines. The proposer went into detail about that. The downturn in those airlines, and the financial crisis that they found themselves in, rapidly reduced the need for new aircraft and aircraft parts. In turn, jobs were threatened in Kilkeel, County Down. That is not something that we would have envisaged on 11 September. Nevertheless, the spiral of decline has continued, and there will be an ongoing knock-on effect on our economy.
Another clear message we received is that we can all do well when things are going well; however, in bad times we will all be affected. Even the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s tremendous skills cannot protect us from the chill winds that are now beginning to blow.
The events of the 11 September 2001 and their fallout have rapidly taught us just how much influence and leverage we have over indigenous local industry, which has nowhere to run to. It is quite easy for big multinational operations with a headquarters in Toronto, Chicago or Boston to cut back on what, for them, could be a relatively insignificant subsidiary or branch in Belfast. It is much harder for a local company to cut back if its base and headquarters are here.
Perhaps we are all Nescafé instant experts on how to get jobs and generate an economy. The events of the last month show clearly that the prosperity, growth and economic well- being put together brick by brick, by slow, steady slog, can be taken away at a stroke.
The motion seeks a redoubling of efforts to safeguard existing jobs. That is a desirable objective, and we have a clear window of opportunity to assess our indigenous businesses fully, including the small businesses that are often neglected. Those small and perhaps not-so-small businesses may be able to exploit opportunities that perhaps have lain stagnant for some time. Perhaps some event has had a stranglehold on them and held them back. We may now be able to focus on some degree of growth, expansion and job creation in our indigenous industry.
I have often heard cries from local industry that it is neglected and taken for granted. This is due to its perception that large packages of considerable financial clout were offered to foreign investors here while local businesses were rarely granted the same favour. I am not saying that that did happen. However, it is a perception that we now have an opportunity to deal with.
Furthermore, there is an chance to dramatically expand some niche markets for local industry and, in particular, to avail of a range of life and health science opportunities. Mr McClarty is well experienced in the advances that are being made by the University of Ulster at Coleraine — I only wish that similar advances were being made in the Belfast region. A range of medical and bio-medical opportunities exists within the context of expanding niche markets.
Moreover, we must be honest with ourselves. There has been much waste, padded bureaucracy and inefficiency under the guise of research and development (R&D). I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to find out what happens to the substantial research and development funds in the Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety budget. I have long been dissatisfied with the amount of money that is put into R&D and the lack of any product from it. There is a tremendous opportunity to create between 3,000 and 5,000 jobs in a short period in the complex employment network that bridges enterprise, trade and investment and our health capacities.
The motion also requests maximum support for agencies responsible for the generation of new national and international investment. No one could disagree with that. I will gladly support those agencies, but I want to be sure that they want my support. I need to be sure that they are operating with a maximum of efficiency and effectiveness. In the past I have not been sure that some of our agencies have been as inclusive and user-friendly — not just to clients but also to local government officials, local councillors and others — as possible. Though some of us may not have been as enlightened, well-informed or well-heeled as they were to deal with some of the issues involved, our intentions were nevertheless honourable and our commitment genuine. As we move forward, we have to get everyone who can contribute into the tent. We have to be as inclusive as possible.
I do not want to drag on, but I do have some other brief points. I want to be sure that we reduce duplication. I am thinking of our various local enterprise agencies. It is no secret that we have a whole web of people and organisations trying to create jobs — or so they tell us. It appears to me that, at times, they spend more money on, and put more effort into, surviving and competing with each other than actually creating wealth. We have to find some mechanism, subservient to our main agencies, where they can fit in — underneath the skirts or umbrella of the main agencies — and play a constructive and creative role. There will have to be some considerable amalgamations, and perhaps a fivefold reduction in the number of organisations.
I am aware that with the present restructuring of IDB, LEDU, IRTU and others, we are reorganising ourselves for the twenty-first century. However, in that reorganisation we have to be sure that we develop a strong structure, with the right attitude. We have to create a can-do and will-do situation — a sort of "Bob the Builder" role. Perhaps, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are not familiar with Bob the Builder, but through domestic circumstances I have become extremely familiar with Bob the Builder in the last few months. [Interruption] Bob the Builder cannot say no; he can fix anything, and we are asking the Minister to be a sort of Bob the Builder — a will-do and can-do individual.
Joking aside, we need to be as creative as possible. In our new agency we need to get as far away from bureaucracy and process as possible, and to focus on results. Process is necessary when public accountability is involved, but we cannot allow the process to smother the product.
In redoubling our efforts we cannot allow any of the hard-won gains of the last 10 years to slip away easily, and I urge the Minister not to allow that to happen. I urge too that the men and women of the small business community be listened to. In the past we have found that the whole generation of the last surge in the American recovery was driven by small businesses.
I do not want to hog this debate, but I want to briefly mention the possible role that local government can play. I urge that we look at sectors where we have strength, such as food and agribusiness — even though the latter has taken a battering in the last few years. The proposer mentioned tourism, and I do not want to dwell on that, or indeed on the transport connections that I think are vital.
I want to mention e-business, e-government, and the whole opportunity afforded by the downturn. We need to get our act together in a much more efficient way. We should cut out the bureaucracy and make things work. We now have an opportunity to gear ourselves up for the next upturn. For years we were struggling behind, but we have made tremendous gains in the last 10 years. We would much prefer that we did not have a downturn, but with the downturn we can take advantage. There are opportunities in the downturn for us to position ourselves and ensure that we advance on the next surge at the front of the field.

Mr Edwin Poots: I support the motion, and I recognise its import. To take it to its natural conclusion would mean providing more financial support for the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, if that were called for. Last year’s Budget did not provide a significant increase in that Department’s budget, and the same is true of the current draft Budget. Those decisions were right at the time because the economy was strong, and it cost less to attract inward investment. However, in recent months there have been signs of economic change, and that change became ultimately more dramatic as a result of the events of 11 September.
The first line of the motion states that the Assembly realises the full extent of international terrorism. There is probably no political body in the world better placed to realise the extent of international terrorism than this Assembly. For 30 years so-called freedom fighters have used arms from eastern Europe and Czechoslovakian Semtex supplied by Col Gaddafi in the Middle East.
They have trained with the Palestine Liberation Organisation with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia and with ETA, and they have carried out a campaign in five different countries in Europe — but in particular, in our own country. We fully know and understand the extent of international terrorism in our own country. It has decimated every opportunity that Northern Ireland’s tourism industry has had to create jobs. It has stopped the tourism industry here from realising its potential.
Our geography, weather and other factors are similar to those in the South of Ireland and Scotland, yet both those countries can attract enough tourists to represent 7% of their gross domestic product, while we can manage only 2%. The role that terrorism had, and continues to have in destroying our tourism industry is clear.
Dr McDonnell made some salient points. Promoting jobs is not so difficult when the world economy is good. It is a different task altogether when the world economy is in recession. In a sense, the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment had an easy ride. I am not saying that he has an easy job by any stretch of the imagination, but he did have an easy ride in attracting inward investment, because world economies were going well.
America could not get enough people for the jobs in its own country, so it was looking at other areas where those jobs could be carried out. In the new era of electronic communications, the option of moving to the other side of the Atlantic was much more realistic than it might have been in the 1970s, when a similar American situation prevailed. In the light of those factors, the Minister’s job was not so difficult. In the current circumstances, however, we are going to see what he is made of.
Shorts have indicated that they are laying off 2,000 workers. In my constituency, Shorts have a base in Dunmurry that employs 680 workers; that is just over 10% of its workforce. It appears, therefore, that some 200 of those workers could lose their jobs. That is not all. Many of my constituents travel to work in Newtownabbey, Queen’s Island and the other Shorts bases.
It is likely, therefore, that more than 200 jobs will be lost in the constituency. In addition, EM-Solutions (Electro Mechanical Solutions), a successful company that has delivered a great service to the local economy, has recently made 90 workers redundant. That would have had an impact on the economy before 11 September, but the events of that date could further exacerbate the problems.
The loss of 160 at British Airways, located in the adjacent constituency of South Antrim, will also have an impact, because it is likely that some of its former employees came from Lagan Valley. Many of the firms that supplied equipment and carried out subcontracting work for Shorts were based in the Lagan Valley constituency. Those events will have a devastating impact on my constituency.
The impact is not confined to the manufacturing industry; it feeds right through to the service sector where many will feel the pinch as a result of what has happened. For a long time I have maintained that the manufacturing base is by far the most important element of our economy. While I like to hear of the creation of service jobs, I much prefer to hear of new manufacturing jobs being created, because if the manufacturing base is in place, the service industries will flow from it. It is therefore essential that we concentrate on ensuring that our manufacturing base is consolidated.
"Consolidation" is the key word at this time. Companies might have to downsize by paying off employees, and, while we must do our best to try to avoid that situation, it is much more favourable than the complete closure of a company. If, during a world economic recession, a company pays off some employees, and does not close, it will have the opportunity to increase its staff levels when the economy recovers. If companies are allowed to close down altogether, no base will remain. It is therefore important that the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and his Department seek to consolidate jobs and companies as far as possible so that companies do not close.
I hope that the Minister succeeds in preventing the closure of the factory in Kilkeel, because it provides essential work for an area that is not well located to attract fresh manufacturing jobs. My Colleague, Jim Wells, has been encouraged by the support that he has received from the Minister in that regard.
The Department needs to set up an early warning system. It must look at what companies are likely to suffer or to be hit as a result of a downturn in the world economy. It must at an early stage identify the weak areas and implement contingency plans to assist those companies that are affected.
Having said all that, I am happy to support the motion. As I said at the outset, it is essential that we have a strong economy. If necessary, we should divert money from other Departments to retain that strength. The other Departments will suffer as a result of a weakened economy, and they will benefit from a strong one. It is essential that in this situation we look after the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

Mr John Kelly: In normal circumstances, the Ulster Unionist Party’s motion would be laudable. However it is slightly surreal that Ulster Unionist Party members should call on the Executive to redouble their efforts to support local industry in the very week that their party leader has announced his intention to collapse these institutions. It is clear that any progress, particularly on economic development and safeguarding existing industries, relies on the Assembly’s continued functioning.
Reg Empey has displayed a degree of competence and energy that recalls the late Brian Faulkner; there is no better compliment that any Nationalist could pay him than that. It would be a pity to lose such energy, enthusiasm and commitment to the creation of the kind of economy that would sustain the North of Ireland. Everyone wants to see the institutions continue; no one more so than we on this side of the House — [Interruption]. It is those who are laughing who least want to see the institutions coming down.
I do not want to rehash yesterday’s debate, but I must say that the leadership of Sinn Féin has made — and continues to make — a genuine effort to resolve the outstanding differences that impede the further progress of the institutions. Martin McGuinness and Bairbre de Brún have played an outstanding role and have demonstrated their ability to use the fruits of the peace process or the political process to help not just their own community, but the community at large in the North of Ireland.
It would not be helpful to introduce bitterness or vindictiveness into the debate, but we should consider a recent survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers, which said that the suspension or collapse of the Assembly would cause 88% of companies to reduce their investment plans for the North of Ireland. That gives us an indication of the likely economic effects of any political downturn. What would be the effect of such a reduction in investment and such a diminution of confidence in the peace process?
No one could disagree with the motion. There has been agreement in the Health and Education Committees about the need to improve health or education services or to improve the lot of the unemployed, the young and those who are finishing education and seeking employment at home, so that they can rear their family here. We all have an obligation to them. Perhaps, some of us who are getting on a bit look at our grandchildren and wonder what kind of society we will leave to them. We must create a better and more secure future, one in which we can all share.

Sir John Gorman: I call Mr Neeson, who wishes to speak in a private capacity rather than as Deputy Chairperson of the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

Mr Sean Neeson: In the circumstances, it is better that I speak as an individual, although much of what I have to say will be endorsed by other members of the Committee.
I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. It is an important one, bearing in mind the circumstances in which we now live. It is almost exactly four weeks ago to the minute that we witnessed the terrible events in the United States. Dr McDonnell was correct when he said that things would never be the same again. It is somewhat ironic that we are debating this issue today, when we consider the implications of yesterday afternoon’s debate.
What are those implications? At this point, we face the collapse of the institutions. By allowing that to happen, we are handing all of our responsibilities over to the street politicians. We have seen marches through Belfast in recent days. Does that provide stability? I do not think so.
I am sorry that Mr John Kelly did not remain in the Chamber. We are involved in a process. Many of us — not all — signed up to the Good Friday Agreement. We signed up to it in the hope and expectation that it would be implemented in full. It is to be regretted that the paramilitaries, both Republican and Loyalist, have failed to live up to their responsibilities. That is why I am sorry that Mr Kelly is not here.
It is not just the Ulster Unionist Party, the DUP or the other parties that are calling for decommissioning to take place. With the events of 11 September, the discovery of Republicans in Colombia and the almost daily violence from Loyalist quarters, the world is now demanding that international terrorism should be brought to an abrupt end. I entirely agree with that. The onus is on all those involved to live up to their responsibilities so that the institutions can move forward. However, it is regrettable that the leader of the Ulster Unionists is going to carry out his proposal to withdraw his party’s Ministers from the Executive.
The benefits of devolution are recognised by the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland. Devolution has worked in the areas of enterprise and the economy. After Nortel’s recent announcement that it was going to cut 20,000 jobs worldwide, Sir Reg Empey immediately got in contact with the company. His intervention, along with other circumstances, meant that Northern Ireland did not suffer the impact that many dreaded. That shows the importance of devolution and of having someone on the ground to deal with such issues. That was clearly seen last year when, at times of difficulties for Bombardier Shorts and Harland & Wolff, Sir Reg Empey was there.
Direct rule is not good for Northern Ireland. Despite the good intentions of the various NIO Ministers, we have all come to realise that during the period of direct rule we had almost 30 years of gross underfunding in our public services, such as education, transport and schools.
Most Members have acknowledged that the downturn in the economy began before 11 September. Northern Ireland is very much a part of the global economy. We cannot ignore that, nor the difficulties that we will face in the days ahead in trying to attract inward investment from overseas. It is going to be very difficult. However, our economy has a very strong indigenous base. We have over 80,000 small businesses, the vast majority employing less than 50 people. That is something that needs to be built upon and encouraged. We need to concentrate mainly on the strong base that we have.
We need to encourage more companies to avail of the research and development facilities that exist and will be created in Northern Ireland, not only through the science parks but also through the universities. It is vital now to develop marketing, to encourage exports and to create greater competitiveness within the industries of Northern Ireland.
There is also the issue of the development of the European market. I look forward to the enlargement of the EU. It will provide a challenge, but it will also provide major opportunities for many companies in Northern Ireland. It is up to businesses to take up the challenge. It is also up to the Assembly and the companies to avail of the new facilities of the Executive office that we have now in Brussels. In the same way, we are at present developing our own office in Washington. It is important to develop IDB, which will become Invest Northern Ireland.
A big danger on the horizon for Northern Ireland is the danger of isolation. We have witnessed the proposals by British Airways to withdraw from Belfast International Airport. Any other air carrier that wants to take up the slots that British Airways will not be using at Heathrow should be granted them. We knew that Sabena was withdrawing, but its recent announcement was also a bitter disappointment. With regard to direct links with America through Aer Lingus, I was talking at the weekend to one of my predecessors, John Cushnahan, MEP for Munster, and the two of us hope to work together to try to retain at least some of the services from Belfast to Shannon. It is a very important link. However, there are serious dangers there.
This afternoon I received a letter from the Northern Ireland Hotels Federation warning of the same dangers. The tourism industry has had a difficult year, first with the foot-and-mouth disease crisis and now with events following 11 September.
I welcome the interdepartmental approach that Sir Reg Empey is prepared to take on many issues. He and Seán Farren have worked closely together. Infrastructure is important, but ultimately the stability of these institutions is vital for the future.
Several months ago the Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment brought forward its report in response to ‘Strategy 2010’. It was a good report and, if anything, is more relevant now than ever. I hope that many of the major recommendations — particularly those relating to small businesses, which the Minister knows I have a deep interest in — contained in the report will be implemented as far as possible to ensure that the interests of the economy are safeguarded.
Edwin Poots mentioned the need for extra money. While there may be a small reduction in next year’s Budget, it is important — and this was outlined to the Committee last week by departmental officials — that there is flexibility in approaching it. I am sure that the Minister would agree with me on that.
I support the motion. I meant what I said about the institutions very sincerely, because it has been shown that the Assembly works. It is important that Members be allowed to continue that work.

Ms Jane Morrice: I support the motion. Given the state of the world economy in the aftermath of the 11 September attacks and what might become of the economy, and given what the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment said to the Assembly last week about the potential fall-off in foreign direct investment — and Members are aware of that serious possibility — the Minister must urgently consider a serious rethink of the direction of Northern Ireland’s economic policy. It should not be a knee-jerk reaction to what is going on but a reassessment of our priorities in light of the global circumstances.
There must be a new focus, as Mr McClarty said, on rescuing those industries that are feeling the immediate effect of the 11 September events. Unquestionably, companies such as Bombardier Aerospace, and the airline and tourism industries, will need special attention, and we do not know whether other industries will join that list. The need for funding to rescue, to help and to divert the skills of those people into other valuable areas is important. I welcome the fact that the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is working with the Minister for Employment and Learning on those immediate needs.
As each Member has said today, greater support is also needed for local indigenous industries, on which the economy will become more dependent as the weeks, months and — I predict — years go by.
I have figures from the IDB for funding inward and local investment. I was not surprised to see that IDB support during the years since 1995-96 for inward investment compared with its support for local investment has been at a ratio of almost 5:1. The IDB has put approximately £500 million into attracting foreign investment to Northern Ireland and just over £100 million into supporting local industries. The ratio will have to change.
For a period during 1995-96 it was costing Northern Ireland £23,619 per job for the IDB to bring in foreign investment. The cost was high. The cost has reduced, and we welcome that. Much of the policy has worked, and we have had good, healthy investment in Northern Ireland, particularly in recent times. However when one takes the global context into account there needs to be a volte-face. The money that has been put into attracting foreign investment must be put into local industry because there will be much less foreign investment available, at least in the coming year. The Minister knows that I have been suggesting this for some time, but since 11 September it has become more important.
I want to focus on three sectors that I think merit specific attention. First, there is the manufacturing industry. In the housing market it is said that price is dictated by three things; location, location, location. In a shrinking global market, I say that what matters for our industry is reputation, reputation, reputation. In Northern Ireland the reputation of the textiles industry is second to none. Irish linen, for example, is of the highest quality and is a superb product that we can export throughout the world; to the tables of Presidents and the fashion centres of Milan. However, I do not believe that we are marketing it enough. We should be doing more to market it locally and globally.
We have been watching our textiles industry shrink. We have such special skills in textiles; and we know that people have to be clothed throughout their life. Why should we allow competition from the Far East to reduce our market? Why do we not push harder? I appreciate that work is being done using experts from Denmark to examine the textiles industry. However, I am impatient; I want things to happen faster, and I want us to get there faster. Northern Ireland and our textile industry are worth it.
Northern Ireland has a worldwide reputation for shipbuilding. Why is it being allowed to disappear? Think of the skills that are being lost. There is one contract left at Harland & Wolff, or so the television reports tell us. The workforce has fallen from 30,000 to 1,000. It is a superb industry employing skills that should be valued, supported, rewarded and helped.
I visited the research and development office in the Industrial Research Technology Unit (IRTU). Their computer screens show stretched aeroplanes and all of the new technology that is making the aircraft industry work so well. Why is this technology not being applied to the shipbuilding industry, and particularly to Harland & Wolff? It should be allowed to move away from shipbuilding and into areas such as offshore wind energy, a pet subject of mine. Something like that would be valuable to Harland & Wolff.
We have a superb reputation for producing excellent, clean, green farm products. Why do we not push organic produce? We have a healthy product that can be sold in these islands and beyond. We need to expand the export market and provide more support for indigenous industry.
One of the most important areas that we need to consider is energy. The Committee for Enterprise, Trade and Investment is conducting an energy inquiry. In the aftermath of 11 September, we need to rethink our energy policy, especially our reliance on imports. We have a perfect opportunity to meet our energy needs with local supplies, particularly renewable energy supplies. It has been said that Ireland’s potential for wind energy equals that of Saudi Arabia’s for oil. Why are only a few windmills dotted around Northern Ireland? We recently visited Denmark, which has many windmills. There is no need for us to destroy our wonderful landscape in the process — we can consider offshore wind energy. That option has been taken up elsewhere. We have the potential to reassess our energy policy and look at renewable sources such as water, waves, solar energy, biomass and recycling. Those could change our approach and make us more self-sufficient in energy, which is vital to our economy.
Mr Neeson mentioned small businesses, the backbone of our economy. DrMcDonnell said that there was much more support for indigenous industry, especially niche markets and creative industries — things at which we excel. I refer to support for life and health sciences, and for the film industry. It is vital that we enter those areas using new technology. People are moving into the new sector of social economy that we need to support, similarly, we need to support socially- responsible business because that is to the fore globally. Business must put something back into the community as well as take from it.
The Minister has heard my plea many times before. It is now more poignant and important than ever. We have a worldwide reputation for excellence. Please let us push that. We have so much to do — not just to make Northern Ireland normal, but to make Northern Ireland great in world terms. We have far too much to lose if we stop now.

Dr Esmond Birnie: I congratulate Mr McClarty and Mr Ken Robinson. The motion is vital, and it is regrettable that attendance is so low.
The motion refers to economic development agencies, and one crucial issue in that context is research and development. Nothing can contribute more to economic growth than research, development and the associated training of human capital. That is not something for which my party has responsibility, but if we are at the point at which the Assembly is to be paused, it is a good time to evaluate progress under devolution on certain fronts.
Mr Neeson referred to the particular importance of cross-departmental work. To take the Executive as a whole, there has not been much interdepartmental work in the past couple of years. The Executive programme funds have had only a limited effect. However, one favourable exception is that the relationship between the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department for Employment and Learning seems to have been close and fruitful.
I commend the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and his Colleague at the Department for Employment and Learning on their work to promote a regional research, development and innovation strategy. I urge them to complete that as soon as possible and to conduct an audit of the R&D effort across the entire economy, including the public and private sectors and the universities.
The Committee for Employment and Learning has already made recommendations on such a strategy as part of the consultation. The Committee tends to favour the 1999 recommendation from the Northern Ireland Economic Council that there should be a single unit in Government that could bang together departmental heads to achieve a greater output from Northern Ireland’s R&D spend. Dr McDonnell made some interesting points on that. Perhaps such a unit could be based in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister; perhaps it could be aligned with the Economic Policy Unit.
It is interesting that both the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Industry and the Minister for Employment and Learning have proposed that the management or co-ordination role for public sector R&D should lie with the Industrial Research and Technology Unit (IRTU). Is that appropriate, given that IRTU will form part of the new single agency, Invest Northern Ireland? Will that new role fit with its industrial development role?
Regardless of the institutional architecture, it is more important to raise the total amount of R&D in the local economy. That currently stands at 0·6% of GDP, which puts us almost at the bottom of the western international league. We should be reaching at least 1%, as the Irish Republic has achieved in recent years. It is a matter of regret that from the perspective of employment and learning, the block funding for university-based R&D in Northern Ireland declined during the 1990s, whereas in Great Britain it grew by about 30%.
The economic agencies must encourage overseas marketing. They need to encourage preparation for or adaptation to the introduction of the European single currency in January 2002. Even whether one thinks, as I do, that the balance of economic arguments alone stands against the United Kingdom joining the single currency, our companies must be prepared to deal with it.
Finally, much work on R&D and related issues has drawn on the research of the Northern Ireland Economic Council. There is an ongoing review of independent economic advice and research for Government in Northern Ireland. It is important to get the right information in order to form a sound basis for policy.
At present, we have the Northern Ireland Economic Council and the Northern Ireland Economic Research Centre, each of which differs in its own way. There is a role for both types of research in the future, although whether those units should merge or not is another issue. It is important to strengthen the Economic Policy Unit so that we can have strategic oversight of all Departments in order to promote higher economic competitiveness and productivity.
I wish to refer to some of the remarks made by the Sinn Féin Member, Mr John Kelly, who, unfortunately, is adopting an abstentionist policy at this point.
At least, or at the very best, his party is ambiguous about the use of violence to "break the British connection", as Sinn Féin would say. Somewhat hypocritically, Sinn Féin also wishes to see more money squeezed out of the imperialist British Treasury, as it would term it, to underwrite some of its economic notions. I am reminded of Gerry Fitt’s remark about getting the Brits out but asking them to leave their chequebook behind. That is not the way forward. There must be a decommissioning of weapons and of mindsets. I support the motion.

Mr John Dallat: I am not sure what efforts the Executive can make to safeguard existing industries or to attract new industries, given the arrangements for the orderly transfer of responsibility to direct rule. Mr Trimble said that he was preparing a soft landing for the Executive and the Assembly. Let us hope that there is progress on decommissioning from everyone, and an understanding by Mr Trimble that the Assembly is not his property but that of the people who voted overwhelmingly for it.
Since the democratic institutions came into being, we have been told that the greatest single contribution to sustaining economic activity is the retention of those institutions. However, there seems to be an obsession with doing away with them. That makes no sense whatsoever — not now and not ever. The very institutions that can instil confidence in the business world and create the potential for inward investment have been undermined continually by those who have caused their suspension on more than one occasion.
The violence of the past 30 years has cost tens of thousands of jobs. No one would deny that fact, given that the reasons for murdering industrialists, burning out factories and warehouses, and generally causing mayhem were to undermine the economy and to cause widespread unemployment. I hope that that aspect of our lives is in the past and has gone for ever. One would have hoped that, given our relative stability and that the political institutions were working well, there would be opportunities to rebuild what had been destroyed or neglected during the past 30 years of direct rule. However, I am pessimistic.
David McClarty, a mover of the motion, knows as well as I do that there is enormous potential for the generation of new international investment. He has been to the United States on several occasions and knows that the one fundamental question that is asked relates to political stability and the evolution of the peace process.
I shall travel to Pittsburgh and Washington later this month to renew and advance relationships that both Mr McClarty and I have helped to build in the past few years. I shall be supporting the University of Ulster and shall do everything possible to influence industrialists to take advantage of the ultra-modern research and development facilities at the university.
Years of effort have gone into the science parks that were created on the back of a stable society in which politicians were expected to sort out their problems without pulling down the political institutions. Surely we owe it to the people who placed their confidence in us to ensure that the present crisis is resolved in a way that does not penalise the very people who helped to keep the economy of this country going while others were pulling it down.
We need look back no further than a few months ago, when the foot-and-mouth epidemic threatened to ruin our tourist industry, for evidence that the Assembly can manage the economy, protect jobs and do what Governments are expected to do. Through the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, and in co-operation with Coleraine Borough Council and local hoteliers, it was possible to put together a rescue package that shielded the tourist season from the worst effects of that crisis, and saved many jobs and businesses. Sir Reg Empey has, of course, been in my constituency on many occasions, where he has promoted jobs, opened new premises, and generally encouraged economic growth and job creation. He could not have been better. He is an outstanding Minister who is doing a good job.
His Colleague, Seán Farren, who has responsibility for employment and learning, has transformed the entire approach to further and higher education and widened access for people who previously had no hope of a vocational or academic education. The problems of illiteracy and innumeracy, which were not only personal injustices for employees but a real difficulty for them in the changing world of new technology, are being tackled so that Northern Ireland will no longer be three times more illiterate than some of its European competitors.
Let us hope that common sense will prevail in the days ahead and that those of us who were elected to the Assembly to help to improve the standards of life for everyone will be allowed to get on with that job. Let us hope that we do not have a repeat of 1974, when political institutions were pulled down by hooded men and ordinary decent people were consigned to 30 years of misrule called "direct rule".
Many did not survive, because a political vacuum creates opportunities for men of violence who have no interest in protecting industries or in creating jobs.
I have no doubt that we can create full employment, attract new industries, lift our labour force to new heights and earning capacity, and educate our youth to compete with those in any other part of the developed world. There is no better part of the world; the ordinary people here have hearts of gold. We owe it to them and to the next generation to create stability, to build confidence, to forget about political chess games and to get on with the job in peace and in partnership.
I worked with David McClarty for many years. I know that he and his Colleagues on the Ulster Unionist Benches are sincere, and I have no difficulty in supporting the motion. I only wish that their party leader were singing from the same hymn sheet — or at least taking singing lessons. However, we must look on the bright side and assume that common sense will prevail. We must believe that the rights of ordinary people are greater than the survival of private armies. We must also hope that our politicians will accept that they are no more than the servants of the people. They must develop the confidence and self-esteem to allow them out of their trenches and on to the middle ground, where partnership, friendship, trust and co-operation are the cornerstones on which to build new jobs and to protect existing ones. Rather than put out the lights in the Assembly, we should radiate hope and prosperity for the future. Industrialists here and abroad have told us that, and they know.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I started by agreeing with Mr Dallat, but he went rapidly downhill after the first few paragraphs. Although almost every party noted John Kelly’s description of the debate as "surreal", many of us find it surreal that IRA/Sinn Féin Members should speak about a strong economy and protecting jobs when they spent 30 years waging economic warfare. It is a pity that Mr Kelly did not stay to hear the remarks of the SDLP, Sean Neeson and Esmond Birnie. He probably expected such comments from me, but they also came from unexpected sources.
It is important that the Assembly voices concerns about the present economic position, but we must realise that we from a small part of the global economy. In creating some jobs, we are especially dependent on big, global companies. However, there are limits to what an individual politician or a collection of politicians in a regional Assembly can do. We should not raise unrealistic expectations of the Minister’s or of the Assembly’s capabilities.
We must recognise that, despite the great strides that Northern Ireland’s economy has made, there are still many structural weaknesses. We rely too heavily on the public sector and not enough on the private sector. More people here are employed in low-productivity sectors of the economy than in any other United Kingdom region. Our gross added value in manufacturing is still the lowest of any region or sector of the UK economy. Those structural weaknesses make it difficult to tackle some of the problems caused by the present global situation. If we are to compete, we must make our economy attractive to investment.
‘Strategy 2010’ identified the ponderous planning process as one of the constraints on our economy. That process has held people back from spending money in our economy. That situation has not improved; it has got worse. The Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment is in the House, but other Ministers should also address the problems that we face in attracting inward investment. It takes two and a half years, on average, for a major industrial or retail project to get planning permission. That is a major disincentive to investment and, thus, to the creation of jobs.
I listened to what Jane Morrice and other Members said about small-scale industry. There are Members who — almost every week — call for the placing of more and more bureaucratic burdens on small industry. Last week, Dr Esmond Birnie rightly raised the issue of the human rights legislation that Members on the other side of the House so enthusiastically embraced. The impact of some of the Human Rights Commission’s recommendations, especially the social and economic rights, would place an immense burden on small firms.
We already have that burden imposed through much of the equality legislation. One of the biggest changes that we should make, if we want to remove some of the pressure from small businesses, is to make the Equality Commission liable for the costs of failed cases. At present, many small firms find themselves having to settle out of court because they cannot afford to win a case if they must bear all the legal costs. We must address those problems.
‘Strategy 2010’ included a recommendation that the Assembly should introduce a rates regime that would help to nurture small, indigenous retail businesses. What has the Assembly done? It has voted, every year, for a rates system that puts a greater financial burden on small businesses. That must be addressed. It is not only a question for the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, it is a question for several Ministers. Those are small moves, but they can help.

Mr George Savage: It is essential that the Assembly and its Ministers continue in office as long as they can in order to protect the interests of Northern Ireland industry. Only by having such well-informed local input will businesses here be adequately protected in the increasingly uncertain world economy. Recession was a possibility before the World Trade Centre disaster; it is now a betting certainty. In such a recession, job losses are part of our daily experience. My Colleagues spoke about the uncertainty in the textiles and manufacturing industries. That uncertainty affects many of my constituents, especially those in Lurgan, Portadown and Banbridge. The situation has arisen because of problems over which they have no control.
Northern Ireland needs the care of local Ministers. With the best will in the world, a return to direct rule would be a return to a less focused approach, which would put Northern Ireland low on the list of national priorities. In contrast, local Ministers who are accountable to the Assembly have a greater sense of duty, a greater sense of urgency, a greater sense of responsibility and a greater need to do something to protect local business.
If I may say it as his Colleague, we could not have a better Minister than Sir Reg Empey, whose recent achievement in obtaining the North/South gas pipeline cannot be praised too highly.
The people who are losing their jobs are the constituents of local Ministers or Assembly Members. Those Ministers are accountable to their constituents. The importance of having Northern Ireland Ministers was forcibly brought home to me last week when Sir Reg Empey told us that 70,000 people in Northern Ireland are employed by firms from outside Northern Ireland. That is a lot of people. Make no mistake, those jobs will be most at risk in a world recession. Without local Ministers working in a business-friendly climate that attracts inward investment, I fear for many of those jobs. In order that the public are left in no doubt, it is critical that the Assembly sends out the loud and clear message that the survival of the Assembly and its Ministers is vital to protect present jobs and to attract more jobs to the Province.
It is vital for all of us to behave responsibly because only the survival of the institutions will provide people with the maximum possible security for their jobs and futures. I am amazed at the behaviour of Members. There were two important debates today — this debate on the economy and this morning’s debate on agriculture. However, only a handful of Members thought it worthwhile to take part. Those are two of the most important debates to take place on the future of our community. Jobs are jobs, and while people have jobs they are content and make a sizeable contribution to the well-being of all. I hope that the party opposite will get its act together and fulfil its obligations.
Following the establishment of economic and monetary union and the single market, the economic integration of Europe is almost complete. It is now necessary to draw up clear proposals for a political union. We face the task of designing a political union that may consist of 27 or more member states. A clear allocation of powers, tasks and responsibilities between the various levels of Government and Europe is essential. For reasons of political transparency and economic efficiency, that allocation of power should comply with the principles of transparency, proximity and subsidiarity. Citizens must know who is responsible for what. We must know who is responsible for our country’s well-being. Our people need to know what is happening. We need to know what is in the minds of people, and where we want to go. The European Union currently has 15 member states and is in accession negotiations with 12 other states. All of those are our competitors. We must compete, and it is better to compete with those communities than to compete against them. I support the motion.

Mr Joe Byrne: I support the motion and the sentiments expressed about what has happened to our economy since the events in America. Consumer demand has been severely affected and we have entered a period of recession. The old economic factor of external-shock syndrome has become apparent to us as a result of the collapse of the World Trade Centre on 11 September. Business confidence has been hit, inward investment has suddenly dried up and uncertainty prevails. Many manufacturing businesses that were already vulnerable because of exchange rate difficulties, high energy costs, high fuel duties and general business uncertainty now face difficulties, or downsizing at least.
Economic development agencies must therefore be sensitive and prudent in their handling of the situation. I pay tribute to the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Sir Reg Empey, for reacting so quickly to the difficulties experienced by the aerospace industries, in particular Bombardier Shorts and B/E Aerospace in Kilkeel. Many American firms in Northern Ireland and the Republic are offshoot or peripheral plants, which are always vulnerable when demand for their products declines. However, firms such as Bombardier Shorts and DuPont have a long, well-established track record in Northern Ireland.
Technology businesses — and dot.com businesses in particular — have experienced difficulties in international trading for at least 18 months. Nortel’s position here is an example of the general international difficulty in the IT sector, which is causing job losses such as those experienced in Newtownabbey.
Northern Ireland has a good track record in manufacturing, engineering and technology-based companies. We have a powerful range of good companies such as Bombardier Shorts, FG Wilson, Powerscreen International, the Finlay group, SDC Trailers Ltd, Hyster (Northern Ireland) Ltd, and R Wright & Son (Coachworks) Ltd in Ballymena. Those are all good examples of resilient and robust manufacturing companies. Many of them are also good examples of local companies that started out as small or medium-sized enterprises. Norbrook Laboratories in Newry and Galen (Pharmaceuticals) in Craigavon are excellent manufacturing examples in the pharmaceutical sector. They are high-value-added businesses whose strong export records successfully contributed to good foreign exchange receipts. All those companies give a good volume of quality jobs to their local communities.
If we were to talk to people in manufacturing who have been involved in exporting over the last three years, I think we would find that they do not agree that we should stay out of the euro. We must give greater support to more of those industries and individual businesses.
Northern Ireland has developed some excellent high- technology, software-based businesses over the past 10 years. The role and support of our two universities has been crucial and strategically significant, especially in the area of R&D. My Colleague, Esmond Birnie, said that more resources should be put into R&D in the universities. I agree with him. Indeed, more financial resources should also be given to those companies that are at the cutting edge of technology research in their particular sectors.
Since the events in New York, people here have realised that the Northern Ireland economy is a small regional economy, very much intertwined and interlocked with the international business community. The industries and services that depend on global and international demand have been severely damaged. The tourism industry in Northern Ireland, which has struggled over the past three or four years, has been dealt a severe blow. It will take time for foreign tourists to visit again, given the great uncertainty surrounding international air travel and public reluctance to fly. We hope that confidence can be rebuilt. It is crucial, therefore, that our economic development agencies be sensitive to, and supportive of, those businesses that have long-term potential.
I support the sentiments of the motion. I am not going to indulge in the more narrow political aspects of it. We are dealing with a largely economic situation. However, it is important that our local Administration should be kept going. In general, people respect and acknowledge the support that local Ministers can give when such external economic shocks affect our industry.

Sir Reg Empey: I have listened to many constructive and encouraging contributions during this important debate, and I want to thank those Members who attended for their frank and forthright sentiments.
First, I want to outline the background to this debate. Since my statement to the Assembly last week, air attacks in Afghanistan must be added to the equation. I said that Northern Ireland was facing its stiffest economic test in more than a decade. Especially since the commencement of the counter-offensive on Sunday, it is fair to say that that test will not be for the faint-hearted. It is clear that we will pass this test only if we can demonstrate the same mettle, resilience and determination that saw us through decades of terrorism here. The coming weeks and months will not be easy for Northern Ireland plc. However, we have one huge advantage: more than at any time in our past, we are well equipped to weather the difficulties. We are taking action. It is not all doom and gloom. Our economy remains strong.
Northern Ireland continues to be a prime investment location in which to grow profitable business. Leading world economies may be on hold at the moment, and there will doubtless be some retrenchment. However, we must ensure that when the upturn happens, Northern Ireland is strategically placed to take advantage of it. The proposer of the motion gave some of the economic indicators: our competitiveness has never been better, we are producing and selling more, we are employing more people, and the underlying strength of the local economy is not in question. However, I readily acknowledge that there are structural and strategic weaknesses in productivity, output, wage levels and business birth rates. It would be foolish to brush them under the carpet.
The efforts of companies in their export drives have been showing dividends: exports have increased to almost £4 billion in 1999-2000. Seventy five thousand jobs here depend on sales outside Northern Ireland. Some 44 companies recently participated in three visits and trade events, including missions to Romania, meetings with French executives in the aerospace industry, and participation in textiles exhibitions in Dubai. Sixteen local companies leave this week on a trade mission to the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar. Next month, 45 representatives from local companies will take part in a trade mission to China, which is an important emerging market. The determination of our companies to continue to seek out opportunities in world markets augurs well for the economy in overcoming the challenges facing us. At a time when our industrial base is under pressure, we must ensure that existing manufacturing operations are as efficient and effective as possible.
The IDB, LEDU and the Industrial Research Technology Unit (IRTU) are working with client companies to improve efficiency, take out costs and achieve greater results. For example, I recently approved the piloting of a business improvement agent scheme under IDB’s business excellence service. In this scheme Government will part-fund the cost of employing a person who has the knowledge and experience to offer continuous improvement skills to several companies. In the current circumstances, I am considering whether there is merit in extending this pilot to cover more companies.
The IDB’s e-business service is promoting web-based solutions as a means to interface with companies, to find new markets and to speed up transactions. Of course, this is even more relevant if companies have air travel difficulties. I am pleased to tell Members that a consultancy contract has just been placed with a locally based business to develop e-business solutions with IDB and with appropriate LEDU clients.
We have also developed a Northern Ireland small business strategy that identifies the need to provide support for small indigenous businesses as a key objective. Under the small business strategy, a business birth rate strategy is also being developed; it will deal with generating more business start-ups. Several key initiatives have already been undertaken, and these will be part of the business birth rate strategy.
I will list a few of them. A revised business start programme aims to support 6,000 new business starts over the next four years and offers a range of training, mentoring and grant support. That is in addition to the fast growth start supported by LEDU’s regional offices, over 100 per year, which are export-orientated businesses. The personal enterprise roadshow — a major event — will encourage entrepreneurship and help individuals progress their business ideas.
Business/education linkages will be developed through the Northern Ireland business and education partnership, which is supported by the Department of Education and the Department for Employment and Learning. I met with them a few days ago. A raft of business education activities will be funded. Organisations such as Young Enterprise, Sentinus and Livewire will play a role in encouraging young people to be more positive about enterprise.
In 2001 the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s support for young enterprise will enable more than 20,000 young people to participate in schools programmes, and they will be supported by more than 1,000 business advisers. Enterprise Northern Ireland and LEDU, together with the information age initiative, have supported the development of the local enterprise agency network with a major project costing more than £2 million to build an information and communications technology network and introduce the e-business process for locally based businesses.
The local enterprise agency network is a valuable asset, with more than 300 local voluntary directors, 200 staff and more than 1,000 tenant businesses, which in turn employ more than 5,000 people. The enterprise agencies will also provide information at local level to encourage people to start businesses and deliver the business start programme.
At the end of October the Washington business summit will take place. It has been created and led by American sources. The summit is dedicated to developing economic networking opportunities between companies in the United States, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland; expanding relationships amongst corporate and government leaders; and developing collaborative strategies to respond to the challenges presented, especially following the events of 11 September.
Prior to that date we had already seen the start of a slow-down in the global economy and a reduction in the flow of foreign direct investment since the start of 2001. That mirrors the experiences of our nearest competitors. The events in September will have brought uncertainty into international markets, particularly to north America, which traditionally has been the largest market for investment in Northern Ireland.
The IDB had record results for inward investment last year but anticipates a much-reduced level of inward investment this year from all major markets as the global economy continues to slow down. Nevertheless, some sectors, such as software and biotechnology, will continue to demonstrate growth and provide inward investment opportunities. We will pursue all such opportunities with current and potential investors.
Several Members mentioned the tourism fund. Clearly there is uncertainty in the tourism industry due to the present unpredictability in the economic, political and travel situations. The Northern Ireland Tourist Board (NITB) is in a unique position to benefit from market intelligence from the British Tourism Authority’s (BTA) and Bord Fáilte’s international networks. NITBs approach has been to work with Tourism Ireland Ltd to analyse several likely developments and their impact on travel demand and Northern Ireland’s competitive stance within the "Ireland" brand.
Tourism Ireland Ltd and NITB will announce a detailed domestic and international tourism strategy for 2002 in November. Cohesion of effort with Northern Ireland industry will be the key to success. The availability of competitive access is critically important to tourism performance. In recent years the advent of low-cost carriers increased capacity, and competition, thereby acting as a driver for growth, especially in the British market.
NITB will work in partnership with key carriers and operators to determine the best prospects for 2002 and will benefit from the additional selling platforms Tourism Ireland Ltd and the extensive BTA network will provide. Both organisations are committed to profiling the Northern Ireland region and its products in key markets. However, some Members noted that there have been some redundancies because companies have lost orders. My Department’s officials have been in contact with client companies to discuss ways of limiting job losses and to look towards recovery.
I have already mentioned some of the programmes that IDB and LEDU have in place and in which companies are already participating.
Members have raised many points, and I will try to respond to as many as I can. If I miss any out, I apologise.
In giving many of the statistics, Mr McClarty set the scene. He spoke about the airlines, as did other Members throughout the House. We are doing what we can. Mr Mallon and I are initiating negotiations and working closely with Gregory Campbell, the Minister for Regional Development, who has charge of the airport issue. We have a keen interest in it from a tourism perspective. We have been making approaches on behalf of Belfast International Airport. The key issue is not simply which airline flies — although that is important — but the landing slots at the airport. If one loses those slots and they are sold off for international trade, then nobody can fly from Belfast to London, for example. That is a huge problem.
Mr McClarty took the opportunity to mention some little local issues in East Londonderry, such as AVX. I am pleased to say that having gone through a difficult period in recent months, that company is beginning to bounce back a bit and some recruitment has recommenced. Both Mr McClarty and Mr Dallat mentioned the question of how tourism affects their borough. I was pleased earlier this year to be associated with the North West Fest and with the attempt that was made locally to resuscitate the borough from the huge blow caused by foot-and-mouth disease. Nobody could deny the impact of that on the local economy, but there was a willingness, led by a consortium including the council and local tourism operators, to do something to help restore their fortunes. We were pleased to be able to identify with that.
Mr Poots raised the issue of the Department’s budget. He is, of course, correct. A few weeks ago people were saying that we did not need the budget; everything was going well. I kept making the point that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment’s budget is largely discretionary. It is not like education or health; we know how many doctors or teachers there are, and we can easily calculate what they need. That is not the case with our budget. Because it is not already pre-committed, the tendency is to grab it and use it for something that it is pre-committed. We have been making the point that if we do not spend our budget, it goes back into the pot.
We must recognise that if we have a strong economy, the other Departments will benefit. Equally, if we have a weak economy, other Departments will suffer. There is a proven link between health, education, et cetera and a strong economic base. I have been able to retain the baseline levels for next year because we have been performing better. We have had a deliberate policy of trying to drive down the cost per job, and we were therefore able to pass some money back into central funds last year. Certainly that might have been the expectation this year up until this point. But, as Mr Poots rightly asked, who now knows?
He also took the opportunity to raise the question of consolidation. That is a good point, because consolidation will be the name of the game. Mr Poots cited Kilkeel as a site of consolidation. Mr Wells is now in the Chamber; I know that he and others have been working hard in that area.

Mr Jim Wells: Does the hon Member accept that the American board of directors of B/E Aerospace, the parent company of the Kilkeel plant, was extremely impressed by the work of both his Department and IDB in bringing together the funding package? No decision has yet been issued, but everything that could have been done in Northern Ireland has been achieved. Now the decision is entirely with the American parent company.

Sir Reg Empey: I am grateful to the Member for his comments. I hope that we will be successful in that. It is out of our hands now, but if there is anything that we can do, we will certainly try. It is important to try; one cannot just sit back and allow these things to happen.
Mr John Kelly seems to have made a bit of smash- and-grab contribution, because he has gone. As soon as he made it, he went. He talked about the suspension of the Assembly and so on; Mr Neeson and a number of other Members also mentioned that. None of us here wants to see the institutions suspended.
I want to be able to continue to do my job if I am permitted to do so. However, that is all very well, but people must understand that the basis on which we are here has several component parts to it — a number of foundation stones. Sadly, one of those parts has been severely weakened. There is the question of understanding the arrangements that were entered into. In business, as in politics, if those arrangements are not honoured, everything else is undermined. That is the issue. I took the opportunity, in an intervention in yesterday’s debate, to make the point that there is no desire on my part to see devolution concluded — far from it — but there must be movement from those who possess weapons. The use of weapons during the past 30 years has created many of the economic difficulties that we now encounter. People must get that into their heads.
Mr Neeson talked about the Heathrow situation. I have referred to that and to the vacuum that may be created. I fully understand that, and Mr Neeson knows what the solution is.
Ms Morrice seems to be on a bit of a roll with the euro. I am focused on the need to assist indigenous industry. She must understand that the figures can be misleading. Companies that may have originated overseas and have subsequently reinvested over the years, such as DuPont and others, may appear in those figures. It all depends on how you define those companies — are they indigenous if they have been here for 40 years or are they blow-ins? However, the point has been made, and I understand what the Member is saying.
Dr Birnie referred to research and development. Dr Farren and I are working closely on that, and we have written to our ministerial Colleagues, Ms Rodgers and Ms de Brún, who have a specific role in research and development. We are trying to work together, and we hope to arrange a meeting to discuss how we can improve not only the amount of money available for research and development, but its performance. That is the key issue. I can assure Dr Birnie that it has always been my intention to ensure that research, development and innovation are at the core of the new agency being formed. I hope that that will be achieved, given that we are not putting enough into research and development. That has to be addressed. However, it is not simply a matter of money; it is also about targeting and quality.
Joe Byrne talked about consumer demand, energy costs and exchange rates, which are all major issues. Ms Morrice also raised the issue of energy. Kirk McClure Morton has done a report on wind energy throughout the shores and coastal areas of the whole island. Mrs O’Rourke, the Minister for Public Enterprise in the Republic, and I are working closely on that, and we intend to bring forward new proposals. We in Northern Ireland are committed to creating new proposals for sustainable energy. We have an ambitious target of 10% of our supply of electricity coming from renewable sources in the next few years. It is a jolly good idea, but first we must address the high costs that we have now. As the year progresses, I hope that proposals will be made on how to do that. There will be gnashing of teeth when they are made, because it will not to be cheap to buy our way out of the contracts.

Mr Jim Wells: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I understand that the Business Committee met today. There is some confusion over whether the Assembly will meet next Monday. Can you confirm whether the Assembly will meet next week or not?

Sir John Gorman: You may discuss the matter with your Whip.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Do you realise that you have prevented Mr Wells from being the last Member to speak during this session?

Sir John Gorman: This is the second time that he has tried to do that.

Mr Ken Robinson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and well spotted. Mr Wells falls at the final hurdle.
I welcome the opportunity to wind up the debate. The contribution from many, if not all Members who spoke, has been mostly positive. I particularly welcome the presence of the Minister throughout the debate. He has a tight schedule, but he has remained here and taken note of the positive points that have been made.
When Mr McClarty and I decided to bring the matter to the House, we thought that it was a timely motion, and I am delighted to say that it seems to have achieved support from all corners of the Chamber.
Last week, Sir Reg Empey said that Northern Ireland was facing its stiffest economic test in more than a decade. It is somewhat ironic that after 30 years of terror inflicted on the Province, we are suddenly faced with the economic and human effects of international terrorism. Our purpose in tabling the motion was to draw attention to the stark realities that Northern Ireland now faces, and the Chamber must be mobilised to take responsibility for generating a favourable climate for future economic investment and expansion.
We all have a role to play in achieving that, but there is a particular onus on some groups who are absent today. For 30 years, our positive marketing opportunities were limited by terrorist violence. Now that our economy has picked up significantly in recent times, it is imperative that we do not allow the intentions of international terrorists or the intransigence of local terrorists, or, as Mr Durkan called them yesterday, the "obdurocrats", to damage our growing reputation as an advantageous investment location.
We are not immune to world economic conditions. The announcement during the past week of the loss of 2,200 jobs at Bombardier Aerospace and British Airways is a reflection of that vulnerability. It has left many families in shock and despair, including many in Newtownabbey in my constituency of East Antrim. Because Northern Ireland is a small economy, centred within the jet stream, as it were, of the world economic climate, we suffer the full effects of the economic winds from the west.
The events of 11 September have hastened and deepened an already unstable global economic position. The implication of those trends for Northern Ireland is alarming. We need not, however, be unduly pessimistic. As has been said by several Members, we have an opportunity. The IDB has created 16,000 from outside sources which means that 4,000 jobs have been created internally. There is a possibility, to which several Members referred, that we might find a way to retain jobs and to expand them. Two fifths of our exports are going outside the United Kingdom. In ordinary times, that would be very positive and something that we would seek to increase. However, I want to touch on a couple of sectors that will be hardest hit by the global economic downturn.
The aerospace industry has suffered dramatically, and the knock-on effects, as Mr Wells and others have mentioned, have gone far beyond the areas that are traditionally seen as the centre of the industry. It is a multi-sectoral industry: it contributes to aerodynamics, mechanical, electronic, software, science and technology bases. The industry has the most intensive research and development in the engineering sector. It is one that we must protect as far as we can. I thank the Minister for the efforts that he has already made.
It is imperative that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment and the Department for Employment and Learning demonstrate their commitment to resolving the difficulties faced by the aerospace industry. It is vital that the workers who will lose their jobs are adequately advised, supported and re-skilled to meet the needs of tomorrow’s global marketplace, a marketplace that will inevitably experience growth in the future. Advice and support for the redundant workers at Bombardier Shorts on issues relating to self- employment business start-up should be forthcoming from agencies such as LEDU.
Recently, the Department of Trade and Industry produced a report that said that one million jobs would be created in the small-and medium-sized enterprise (SME) sector in the UK in the next decade. That is also the key to our future success. We must ensure that SMEs in Northern Ireland are the main drivers of economic growth and can produce the innovation and job creation that is vital for the future. Our ability to attract domestic, national and international SMEs will be crucial to the drive to ensure that the Northern Ireland economy is balanced and stable. There is no room for complacency in the Chamber or in our economy. We must recognise that the economy relies to a large extent on foreign direct investment and that it is, therefore, susceptible to global instability.
For the foreseeable future, not many people will travel across the Atlantic from the United States. However, we are a European region, and we should turn our attention to the market in Europe, which is now larger than the American market. I have just returned from Poland, where I saw the impact that can be made if Europe extends its boundaries to the east. We could easily attract European visitors to Northern Ireland who cannot go to the United States. We have good, efficient ferry services in the North Channel, and the North Sea services improve each year. Before the new season, our tourist industry should investigate the growing European market.
The Programme for Government stated that the Executive would work to attract inward investment, improve efficiency in our economy, ensure that businesses and consumers have access to regulatory services of an international standard, and — importantly — increase Northern Ireland’s attractiveness to visitors. We have the potential to do something and do it soon.
I was particularly impressed by what Dr McDonnell said about the global economy and the opportunities for growing prosperity. Such prosperity can be slow to build up and can be taken away at a stroke. We have all learnt that in the past few weeks. Every Member who spoke said that small indigenous industries were the key; that is something on which we should major. Dr McDonnell referred to the opportunity to develop niche markets, such as bioscience, and that might create opportunities for growth.
Mr Poots made the obvious point that terrorism had stunted the growth of our tourism industry. Perhaps there is an opportunity for our friends from across the Chamber to do something positive and help us become a tourist magnet. He also suggested the creation of a departmental early warning system to identify weaknesses in our economy; that is vital. If we can identify the indicators, we can deal with the situation before it arrives on our doorstep. That way, we could head off some of the worse eventualities that might lie ahead.
Mr Neeson mentioned the indigenous industrial base and the opportunities for the EU. I am at one with Mr Neeson on that. He welcomed Sir Reg Empey’s interdepartmental approach, as do we all. Ms Morrice wanted us to consider economic policy. I agree with her that it is not a time to sit in the corner and moan, but to think about where we have come from, where we are now and where we might go in the future. She said that we needed a new focus; most of us would agree with that. She spoke about the Irish linen and shipbuilding industries et cetera, and her comments on those were welcome on this side of the House. We wondered about her dress code today; we do not know whether her suit is Irish linen, but we shall ask her after the debate.

Ms Jane Morrice: It is.

Mr Ken Robinson: That is good.
Dr Birnie spoke about research and development. We should invest more of our gross domestic product in that, and there should be an interdepartmental approach.
Dr Birnie also said that economic agencies needed to encourage overseas marketing and prepare Northern Ireland for the euro. I agree with him about the possibilities there.
Mr Dallat made some of the local — [Interruption].

Ms Jane Morrice: Will the Member give way?

Mr Ken Robinson: No, I will not give way. Mr Dallat made some of the usual remarks about the wonderful places around the north coast and those remarks were replicated beside me. Mr Sammy Wilson said that the Northern Ireland economy was too reliant on the public sector — [Interruption].

A Member: He has run away.

Mr Ken Robinson: He has run away, but we want to move away from that.
I thank the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment for attending the debate and for the positive remarks that he made. I also thank the Members who contributed to the debate.

Mr Jim Wells: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I reject the scurrilous remarks made by the hon Member for East Belfast, Mr Wilson.

Ms Jane Morrice: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Do you agree that that was not a point of order?

Sir John Gorman: I have not dealt with the first point of order, but I am sure that the House will understand the point being made.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly, realising the full extent of international terrorism, resolves that the Executive should re-double its efforts to safeguard existing industries in Northern Ireland and give maximum support to agencies responsible for the generation of new national and international investment.
Adjourned at 4.07 pm.